Mukesh Dancer v. State of U.P

Court No. - 37 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43172 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukesh Dancer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in S.T. No. 1836 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 587 of 2021 at Police Station-Kwarsi, District-Aligarh, under Sections 272, 273, 304, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 60(A) Excise Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.07.2021. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 27.01.2022. The following arguments made by Shri Rajiv Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶1The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶2The applicant is neither a licensee nor the owner of the shop from where the cartons of illicit liquor were recovered.

¶3The recovered items were planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.

¶4There is no independent witness to the recovery.

¶5The other co-accused persons namely Amit Garg, Neetu @ Umesh Chand, Vikki @ Vikas and Rajbahadur @ O.P. have been enlarged on bail by this Court by orders dated

28.11.2022, 08.04.2022, 25.05.2022 and 16.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 48894 of 2021, 3787 of 2022, 13570 of 2022 and 28513 of 2022. The case of the applicant stands at a better footing but he seeks parity for grant of bail.

¶6The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a number of cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶7The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Mukesh Dancer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a stipulated period of time. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as contemplated under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court. In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Agra, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court. The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders. The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Aligarh by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Pravin High Court of Judicature at Allahabad