Allowed

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022BAIL/19037/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a second bail application filed by Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna in a murder case. The court granted bail citing the snail-pace trial, heavy dockets, long incarceration since 2012, and doubts about the improbability of witnesses standing at a door at night. The release is conditional with specific undertaking clauses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties for amounts to be fixed by the trial court, subject to conditions.

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19037 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Kesarwani,Arun Kumar,Mohd. Monis,Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohd. Monis, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is a second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27868 of 2014 was rejected by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.

¶7

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna seeking bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2012, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad (Prayagraj).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the incident is said to have taken place in the night at about 10:45 PM. The deceased is said to have been fired upon by the applicant and two others causing his instantaneous death. The incident is said to have witnessed by the wife of the deceased along with three others, namely, Rajesh Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Shivam Yadav.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similarly situated Mukesh Sonkar @ Churi has been granted bail, vide order dated 14.10.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48723 of 2021, therefore, on the ground of parity applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. The second ground of the counsel for the applicant is that as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, which are to be examined, however, till date, the statement of only 7 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and the trial is still in progress. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2012. He has further submits that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 16.10.2014, the trial court was expected to make all endeavors to conclude the trial preferably within a period of

¶10

eight months, however, even after the lapse of long time, trial has not been concluded. He further submits that looking to the snail pace at which the trial is being conducted, the chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets. He further submits that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. He has regularly been co-operating in the process of trial. He lastly submits that looking to the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 30.12.2012 and despite order dated 16.10.2014 passed by this Court to expedite the trial, the same is still progressing at a snail pace.

¶12

Looking to the snail pace at which the trial is proceeding, there are bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2012. Even an under trial prisoner is entitled for expeditious disposal of his trial and cannot be kept behind the bar for indefinite period in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The incident is said to have taken place in the night at 10:45 PM on 24.12.2012, when it was biting cold. Presence of witnesses at the odd hours of the night stated to be standing at the door of the house witnessing the incident, appears to be highly improbable and beyond shadow of doubt.

¶13

In the backdrop of the said circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail for last almost 10 years and the trial has not been concluded despite order passed by this Court, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Looking to the long incarceration of the applicant in jail since 30.12.2012, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(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

¶16

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶22

Rahul.

¶23

Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.12.03 15:47:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Bhartiya @ Anna 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

Kapil @ Kunvar Sahab Vs State of U.P.

Jamuna Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sajal Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Umesh Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others