Allowed

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2020BAIL/2620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner sought enlargement on bail, citing indefinite trial delay caused by the opposite party (Informant). The court emphasized the fundamental right to personal liberty and ordered the release of the applicant on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in compliance with the conditions set by the court.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2620 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Rizwan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri B. Narayan Singh, Advocate for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This is the second bail application moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 627/117 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr.

¶8

It is contended that trial virtually has concluded and at the stage of hearing, in order to obstruct final decision, Informant filed Transfer Application which was rejected by Sessions Judge and thereafter Informant moved this Court in Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 497 of 2019 in which initially this Court granted stay of pronouncement of judgment by Trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 and now aforesaid Transfer Application has been decided and matter was remanded to Sessions Judge, whereafter Transfer Application has been allowed and trial has been transferred to another Court. It is contended that in this way Informant is not allowing final adjudication in the matter and applicant on account of aforesaid act of Informant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2014. Earlier bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 16.04.2019 and looking to above facts and circumstances it appears that trial is being delayed for the reason not attributable to applicant.

¶9

Looking to subsequent events and manner in which Informant has delayed trial, in my view, applicant cannot be kept in jail for indefinite

¶10

¶11

period without having any scope of speedy trial. Moreso, evidence has already been recorded and there is no chance of tempering of evidence. 5. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but could not place anything before this Court so as to bring any circumstance existing, justifying denial of bail to accused-applicant when he is already in jail for a long time.

¶12

Supreme Court in State though C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8) SCC 21 has also observed that normally bail should have been granted unless there exist circumstances/factors justifying denial thereof. Some of such circumstances have been stated as under:

¶13

"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶14

(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

¶15

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶16

(iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail;

¶17

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶18

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶19

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and

¶20

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 7. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director 2007 (1) SCC 70 while recognizing that personal liberty is a valuable constitutional right recognized under Article 21, Court observed that while considering question of bail, judicial approach balancing personal liberty as well as interest of the society and also other relevant factors must be observed. Court further held that personal liberty of an accused or convict is also a fundamental right but if the circumstances so justify, it can be eclipsed. The length for which an accused has remained in jail before conviction, i.e., during investigation or trial, is a relevant consideration for the reason that in case ultimately the incumbent is found not guilty, i.e. having not committed any offence, it would be a

¶21

¶22

travesty of justice to keep such a person in jail for years together and denial of personal liberty in such a case though may be mitigated by awarding appropriate compensation but cannot appropriately be compensated at all. Simply because Court takes a long time in trial, it will not be justified to keep a person in jail on the ground that Court or the prosecution is not efficient enough in completing trial in a reasonably short period and the incumbent must remain in jail, even though ultimately he may be found innocent. In fact, if a person is acquitted after a long and delayed trial, though incumbent was throughout in jail, even Judicial Officer would be having a feeling of contrition facing a situation where a person has served sufficiently a long term in imprisonment though, is found innocent and ultimately acquitted. No uniform principle can be laid down since every matter would depend on the circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that a person has remained in jail for long time, for that reason alone bail must be granted, but the period during which an incumbent has been remained in jail, during investigation or trial is a relevant factor. These are certain guidelines laid down in State through C.B.I. v. Amar Mani Tripathi (supra) were reiterated in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI (supra) .

¶23

In view of above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it appropriate to release applicant on bail.

¶24

The application is allowed.

¶25

Let applicant, Rizwan, involved in Case Crime No. 627/117 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with following conditions:

¶26

¶27

(i) The applicant will not temper with the evidence during trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

(iii) The applicant will appear before Trial Court on the date fixed. (iv) The applicant shall report to the Police Station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour.

¶30

In case of breach of any of above conditions by applicant, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 26.02.2020 AK

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Shanker Chaubey Vs G.M. and Others

P.K. Omar Vs U.P. State Handloom Corp. Ltd. Thru Its Chairman and Ors.

Abdullah Khan Vs Principal Govt.Industrial Training Institute and Others

Dinesh Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Khushi Ram Vs State of U.P.

Man Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others