Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50552 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui,Riyaz Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 369 of 2022, U/S 304-B, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶4This is the second bail application. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2023 and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial in light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has further stated that subsequent to the said order, six witnesses of fact (P.W. 1 to 6) have been examined and all of them have resiled from their earlier statement recorded by the investigating officer. The said witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. It is further stated that P.W. 6 is a transcriber of the FIR, who has also been declared hostile, as such, there is no possibility of conviction in the present matter. The fundamental rights of the applicant stand violated as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial, as there are eighteen witnesses to be examined.

¶6Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.8.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶8Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant-Pradeep Kumar who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of 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.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad