Monu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6865 of 2022 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Pathak,Anurag Pathak,Onkar Singh,Sachin Malik Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on

19.01.2021 by the coordinate Bench of this Court which is not available now. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has parity of role with co-accused, Sagar, who has been enlarged on bail subsequently on 31.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37689 of 2021. It is a case of single shot. There are two accused in this case but it is not clear who is the author of aforesaid injury. Even before the trial court this point has not been clearly explained by the prosecution witness. The applicant is in jail since 21.05.2020 and has criminal history of one case under Arms Act connected to the present case. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application along with learned A.G.A. They have submitted that all the prosecution witnesses in the main trial have been examined. Only investigating officer of the connected case under Arms Act remains to be examined. Thereafter the trial court will be concluded. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that defence evidence and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C are still to be recorded which will take further time. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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. Let the applicant, Monu, involved in Case Crime No. 191 of 2020, under Sections-302, 120-B and 34 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Shamli, District-Shamli, 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 the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days. Order Date :- 5.12.2023 Rohit High Court of Judicature at Allahabad