The Court allowed the second bail application of an accused charged with murder and attempted murder. Considering that fact witnesses were examined and the trial was delayed, the applicant was released on personal bond and sureties.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of a like amount to the satisfaction of the court.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6900 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Tripathi,Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is virtually connected through video conferencing and learned A.G.A. is personally present.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second bail application filed by the applicant.
The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 668 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that the first bail application was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24786 of 2015. Copy of the first bail order is annexed at page 10 to the second bail application. Further submission is that in the bail rejection order, the coordinate Bench had directed for the disposal of the case within three months. It has been submitted that despite orders of this Court, the trial has not yet been completed. The second limb of argument is that from perusal or the order sheet annexed with the bail application, it is clear that formal witnesses are being examined and Naib Tehsildar along with dying declaration of the deceased has also been summoned from the court of C.J.M. concerned. It has been submitted that the said dying declaration
has been annexed in the bail application and in that dying declaration, the deceased has herself stated that she was not burnt by anybody but because of some carelessness while cooking food, the fire caught. It has also been submitted that all the fact witnesses have already been examined, hence, there is no question of the accused influencing the prosecution witnesses. As such, in view of the rejection order and also considering the effect of prevailing pandemic, the accusedapplicant may be released on bail. The accused-applicant is prepared to furnish the surety and bond and is giving undertaking that he will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in jail since 24.09.2014, hence, he is entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has further submitted that all the fact witnesses and some of the formal witnesses have already been examined.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the dying declaration, which has been annexed with the bail application and also considering the fact that all the fact witnesses including some formal witnesses have already been examined and there is no question of the accused influencing the witnesses, taking the sympathetic view, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that applicant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 23.6.2021 sailesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused applicant should be granted bail in a murder case where the trial is delayed due to pandemic.
Whether the accused applicant can influence prosecution witnesses if released on bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
