Shyamveer v. State of U.P

Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20735 of 2023 Applicant :- Shyamveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This is the second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32285 of 2021 was rejected by me on merits vide order dated 23.11.2022, by which, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.

¶3This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, there are as many as 28 prosecution witnesses, however, till date only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is progressing at an snail pace.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2020 and has almost undergone about three years and nine months of incarceration in jail and there are very bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to very heavy dockets.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment as under:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. In the present case, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶8Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, who is an under trial prisoner and regard to the fact that there are bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to very heavy dockets and further keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such circumstances for grant of bail, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10Let the applicant Shyamveer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

(i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC.

(iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case,

(b) framing of charge and (c) recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶11It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶12It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶14The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶15Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e-mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned. Order Date :- 24.11.2023 Subham High Court of Judicature at Allahabad