Allowed

Rohit Kumar Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022BAIL/911/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application, directing the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties. The order was based on jail overcrowding and constitutional mandates without examining the merits of the case, while mandating expedited trial completion.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; directed trial concluded within one year.

Rohit Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 911 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Ranvijay Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Ranjan Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant.

¶7

The first bail application was rejected on 26.11.2018 by a coordinate Bench of this Court which is not sitting in the present jurisdiction.

¶8

As per report of the trial court, statements of P.W.1, 2 and 3 have been recorded and their cross-examination is yet to be completed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2018. Only three prosecution witnesses has been examined. The trial has not completed and it is not clear how much time it will take further for the trial to be completed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

In view of the above and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Rohit Kumar Pal, involved in Case Crime No. 154 of 2018 u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Roora, District- Kanpur Dehat, 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 :-

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial. In case the applicant does not co-operates with the trial, it shall be open for the informant to file application for cancellation of bail of the applicant.

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

(vi) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.9.2022 SS

¶22

Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.09.16 15:53:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Kumar Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Pal 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

Parvindar Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raukesh@ Rauke Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra @ Sonu Vs State of Up