Allowed

Vijay Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2022BAIL/3918/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Allahabad High Court granted bail to applicant Vijay Shankar Yadav under Section 306 IPC after observing significant trial delay and jail time, imposing strict attendance and conduct conditions and directing expeditious trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance and conduct conditions; trial court directed to conclude trial within six months.

Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3918 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Shankar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Imran Ullah,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List revised.None appears on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Shri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vijay Shankar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.616 of 2017, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Karchhana, DistrictAllahabad, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Initially applicant was implicated for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. on allegation that since his wife has given birth of two female children,therefore he burnt his wife and two daughters.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that subsequently implication of the applicant was made under section 306 I.P.C. From the statement of the independent witnesses it appears that deceased was short tempered and after bolting the door from inside she burnt herself and her two daughters. As per order of this court dated 20.9.2021 the trial court was directed to conclude the trial on day to day basis but the same has not been concluded till date.Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary afÏdavit alongwith order sheet and stated that trial court summoned Anita Devi under section 319 Cr.P.C. by order dated 30.11.2021 thereafter prosecution witnesses examined till now would be reexamined .Applicant is about to complete five years in jail in January,2023 as per section 436-A Cr.P.C. he is entitled for bail. The applicant has been falsely

¶11

implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 6.1.2018. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

¶14

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022

¶16

and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials 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 :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶21

(v) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶22

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶26

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.26 17:38:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shankar Yadav 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

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Kumar Gond @ Brijendra Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Puppu Pal Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Nanhi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another