Allowed

Chiku Alias Atahar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022BAIL/1639/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 302 IPC, granting release due to inordinate delay in the trial proceedings which violated the applicant's right to a speedy trial. Four conditions were imposed for bail.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to four conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance.

Chiku Alias Atahar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1639 of 2019 Applicant :- Chiku Alias Atahar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2018 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 04.05.2018.

¶5

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Banda, on 17.10.2018.

¶6

Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident happened on 28.04.2018. The FIR was lodged on 29.04.2018 by the wife of the deceased. Four persons were named as the principal offender who had done the deceased to death. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The applicant was implicated in a statement of a witness which was belatedly recorded by the investigating officer. The delay in recording the said witness is fatal to the prosecution case. The said statement is based on suspicion and conjectures. The applicant is the cousin brother of the deceased. The recovered items cannot be connected with the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The applicant is in jail since 04.05.2018. This Court by order dated 13.07.2022 had directed the trial court to submit a report regarding the status of the trial. The report submitted by the trial court discloses that there are sixteen witnesses to be examined. However till

¶7

date only one prosecution witness has been examined.

¶8

I see merit in the contention of Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is proceeding at snail's pace and is not likely to conclude in near future. The applicant always cooperated with the investigation and has duly joined the trial proceedings. Inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial will result indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The fundamental right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. The comments of learned trial Judge and the slow progress of the trial are matters which ought to concern the learned District Judge. A copy of this order may be placed before the learned District Judge. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Chiku Alias Atahar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Pravin

¶19

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.07.29 10:58:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chiku Alias Atahar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiku Alias Atahar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bablu @ Virendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others