Allowed

Kamlesh @ Bachchan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2021BAIL/19906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court granted bail to a senior citizen father-in-law of a missing victim after more than two years of confinement. The court noted a lack of direct allegation evidence against him and directed the trial court to complete proceedings within a year.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions for attendance and compliance with court orders.

Kamlesh @ Bachchan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19906 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kamlesh @ Bachchan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh,Santosh Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadh Bihari Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This is the third bail application filed by the applicant- Kamlesh @ Bachchan , seeking bail in Case Crime No. 615 of 2019, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station-Naubasta, DistrictKanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

The first bail application was rejected on 25.11.2019. In that, it was observed as under:

¶8

"5. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out to grant bail, at this stage. The case of the daughter of the present applicant, who is residing at Delhi, for reason of her marriage, stands on a completely different footing. Therefore, the applicant may not claim parity.

¶9

6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶10

7. In the meanwhile, it is expected that the learned courts below may take up the matter with expedition both for the consideration of committal, as also, for framing of charge, if any, so that such stage of proceeding may be completed within a period of four months from today."

¶11

At that stage, the applicant had approached the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11295 of 2019, which was disposed of by the following order:

¶12

"The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the court in case the trial does not commence in the foreseeable future."

¶13

Thereafter, the applicant filed second bail application No. 3615 of 2020. It came to be rejected by order dated 10.02.2020, which read as below:

¶14

"1. The first bail application had been rejected, vide order dated 25.11.2019. Against that order, the applicant filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11295 of 2019. It came to be dismissed, vide order dated 16.12.2019, by the following order:

¶15

"The special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the court in case the trial does not commence in the foreseeable future."

¶16

2. At present, it appears, barely one month had passed since the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observation.

¶17

3. In view of the above, the present application is rejected, at this stage."

¶18

Today, it has been submitted that against the FIR lodged on 24.06.2019, the applicant has remained confined since 28.08.2019 i.e. more than two years. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the alleged victim who went missing within two months of her marriage on 17.06.2019. While rejecting the first bail application, heavy reliance had been placed by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA on the statement of the neighbour Monu Mishra. Further, reliance had been placed on certain call details.

¶19

At present, it has been submitted, at the trial, statements of four witness of fact had been recorded including those of Dinesh Sonkar (PW-1)/first informant, who is the brother of the alleged victim, Parwati (PW-2), who is the mother of the alleged victim, Monu Mishra (PW-3), neighbour who statement was referred to in the first bail rejection and another witness the Investigating Officer (PW-4). Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 who are close relatives of the alleged victim have made any statement as may implicate the present applicant, who is the father-in-law of the alleged victim.

¶20

Reference has also been made to certain statements made by PW-1 to submit that the alleged victim walked out of the marriage of her own freewill. Again, reference has been made to the statement of PW-2 to submit that the alleged victim did not possess or use mobile phone.

¶21

Last, it has been emphasized that PW-3 Monu Mishra has denied having heard any cries for help prior to occurrence as had been recorded during investigation.

¶22

In such circumstances though no witness of fact has supported the prosecution story at the trial, against the applicant who is a senior citizen, more than 60 years of age, he has remained confined for more than two years. He is thus entitled to bail, at this stage, keeping in mind that there is no direct allegation emerging against him and that his relationship with the victim girl is of father-in-law. Whatever allegation may exist may remain to be tested against the co-accused Govind.

¶23

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA, who would submit that the victim girl has yet not been recovered and none of the witness has turned hostile. Further, besides the oral evidence, there are call details which have been referred to in the investigation and have yet to be tested at the trial. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail, at this stage.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, keeping in mind the relationship of the applicant with the alleged victim being that of father-in-law and in the backdrop of the facts that Monu Mishra has not supported the prosecution story insofar as the present applicant is concerned, it cannot be overlooked that the applicant has remained confined for more than two years. Therefore, without reaching any conclusion as to fact and without making any

¶25

observation with respect to the allegation that exists against coaccused, the present applicant is found entitled to bail, at this stage.

¶26

Accordingly, let the applicant - Kamlesh @ Bachchan , involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶31

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶32

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶33

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶34

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶35

The Court records its appreciation that the learned trial court has made much efforts to ensure speedy progress of the trial since the last order passed by this Court, it is expected that the learned trial court shall continue to make best efforts to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today.

¶36

Order Date :- 8.10.2021 Abhilash

Kamlesh @ Bachchan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh @ Bachchan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanshila Devi and Others Vs Mohd. Kamal and Another

Smt. Rati and Another Vs Saroj Kumar Jaswal and Another

Smt. Krishanwati and 2 Ors. Vs Saroj Kumar Jaswal and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Bateshwar Dayal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another