In this bail application, the High Court granted release to the applicant despite earlier rejections, citing a prior judicial observation that bail is warranted if the trial is delayed beyond one year without fault by the accused.
Release on bail with execution of personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12831 of 2018
Applicant :- Mahendra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Apul Misra,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking release on bail. The first bail application was rejected for non-prosecution on 29.1.2016 by this Court and the second bail application was rejected by this Court on 9.1.2017, on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting earlier bail application the Court had made an observation that if the trial does not get concluded within next one year from then, the applicant would have the liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It has been pointed out that earlier bail application was rejected on 9.1.2017 even though more than a year has elapsed, the trial has not yet been concluded for no fault that may be attributable to the applicant-accused. Contention is that in such circumstances, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.
Heard the learned AGA and perused the record.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant appears to have substance. The aforesaid observation as has been pointed out has been made in the order when the bail was rejected last and it appears that the delay in conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the applicant. In such circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to release the applicant on bail as the applicant is in jail since 3.1.2015.
Let the applicant-Mahendra Pal involved in Case Crime
No. 127 of 2014, S.T. No. 495 of 2016, State versus Gaya Prasad and others, u/ss 307, 323 and 326 IPC, P.S.Keolaria, District- Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 25.5.2018
CPP/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail given the delay in trial conclusion not attributable to him and prior judicial observation regarding this scenario.
What bail conditions should be imposed to secure the applicant's release.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Pal
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
