In this bail application, the Court considered the applicant's inability to appear in previous proceedings and the long duration of detention. Relying on Article 21, the Court granted bail with specific conditions regarding attendance and reporting to the police station.
The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and two heavy sureties.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36439 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhagwat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the applicant was granted bail on 12th November, 1992, but after 26th November, 2011 he could not appear before the Court, hence non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Therefore, he appeared before the Court and was granted bail again in the year 2012. Again after 13th April, 2012, the applicant could not appear before the court below, hence nonbailable warrant has been issued against him on 16th July, 2012, due unavoidable circumstances, which have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed forth the circumstances under which the accused-applicant could not appear before the court when he was required and as a result of which his bail got cancelled. It has been submitted that henceforth no default shall be committed by the accused and he is prepared to give an undertaking that he shall faithfully make himself available to the court on each and every date. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 2nd July, 2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly contended that considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicant behind the bars.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar with regard to explanation offered by the accused for his default and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Bhagwat involved in Case Crime No. 350 of 1992, under Sections 5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police StationBaghpat, District-Baghpat, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two heavy 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.
(3) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned Police Station. In case of any default, the In-charge, Police Station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach.
In case of default of compliance with condition no. (2) enumerated herein above, the order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically and the court concerned shall issue warrant in order to get the applicant arrested and lodge him in jail.
Office is required to communicate this order to the S.S.P. concerned who is required to convey this order to the concerned police station to ensure compliance of condition no.3 as provided herein before.
The concerned court below which will accept the bail bonds is also directed to convey a photo copy of this order to the concerned police station so that the condition no. 3 provided herein before may be complied with.
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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail given his circumstances and lack of tampering risk.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Bhagwat
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
