The Court granted bail to the applicant in a 1985 dacoity case due to long pendency and lack of witnesses, directing faster trial within one year after court reopens.
Grant of bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions including compliance with investigation, sincere cooperation, no new crimes, and trial conclusion within one year.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 399 of 2020
Applicant :- Baghela @ Sukharam Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Tiwari,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,Sushma Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Baghela @ Sukharam Das, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 1985, under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station Sevarahi, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of trial.
Allegation in the FIR is regarding dacoity against 15-16 unknown persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no one was named in the FIR. His name has been mentioned by co-accused, Sitaram Mallah, stating that applicant was present on the scene of dacoity with a gun and exhorting the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no recovery from the applicant nor any other role has been assigned to him. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is in jail since 14.11.2019.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and pointed out that applicant is absconding since the year 1985 and there is no justification for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record the order-sheet of the court below, which shows that nonbailable warrants were issued to the applicant in routine course and there is no order which was ever served on the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is very old case of the year 1985. Informant had died and no one is appearing in the trial and therefore applicant never
knew about the pendency of this case. Charge-sheet was submitted against him in his absence.
Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Keeping in view all the facts of the case, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial in the aforesaid case, within
a period of one year, from the date of normal functioning of the court below is resumed.
Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Ruchi Agrahari
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a dacoity case where he is an accused but no one was named in the FIR initially.
Whether bail conditions and a direction for faster trial are necessary considering the long pendency since 1985.
Whether the applicant's failure to appear in trial and alleged absconding justify denying bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶13
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Baghela @ Sukharam Das
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
