Allowed

Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/1381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case pending for over five years without framed charges. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the excessive delay violated fundamental rights and mandated enlargement on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ranjeet Yadav released on bail with personal bond and two sureties and directed trial to conclude in reasonable time.

Ranjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45962

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1381 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran,Saurabh Srivastava,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Jaikaran, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 02.11.2018 as withdrawn, subsequently, during the course of the trial, the applicant once again moved an application for bail which was rejected on 22.03.2022.

¶8

The counsel for the applicant argues that applicant was initially not named in the F.I.R., subsequently, even in the confessional statement of one Santosh Kumar Tiwari, who confessed, to the offense in question, the applicant was not named, however, on 13.08.2017 based upon the confessional statement of applicant and the alleged recovery of ornaments, the applicant was arrested. While rejecting the bail application of the applicant in the order dated 22.3.2022 the Court was of the view that the apprehension of the applicant along with the ornaments and money recovered without explanation, renders the request of the applicant for enlargement on bail worthy of rejection and, accordingly, the bail application was rejected.

¶9

In the third bail application, knowing the limitations, learned counsel for the applicant argues that after the rejection of bail application on 22.03.2022, the applicant continues to languish in jail and even the charge has not been framed as is clear from the document filed along with the supplementary affidavit in the form of questionnaire issued on 30.01.2023. He further argues that till date the charge has not been framed and the applicant continues to be in custody. The total period in custody is five years and eleven months, thus, on the ground of inordinate delay in trial, it is argued that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 and argues that inordinate delay in trial violates the right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is a criteria for deciding the bail application.

¶11

In the present case as per the arguments, rights under Article 21 of

¶12

Constitution of speedy trial have clearly been violated. As regards, the criminal antecedents, the same have been duly explained in the rejoinder affidavit. In all the said cases, either the applicant is on bail or has been acquitted. Thus, the argument of counsel for applicant is confined to violation of right of speedy trial and consequently, on ground of inordinate delay the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on this ground.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the bail application by arguing that while dismissing second bail application, this Court had adequately noticed the appearance of applicant in the CCTV camera. He further argues that the Court was impressed by the huge recovery of the ornaments and as a result, the Court had rightly rejected the bail application. As regards the delay in trial, learned A.G.A. states that the trial should be directed to be concluded within a reasonable time instead of granting bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions made at the bar, it is not disputed that the applicant continues to languish in jail since 14.08.2017 solely based on extra confessional statement and recovery from him, besides his presence shown in CCTV camera. Further, the Court cannot brush aside the fact that detention of almost six years have completed without even the charge being framed till date. The said inordinate delay in the trial, is clearly a ground for grant of bail in view of the law settled by Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb (supra) as such on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Ranjeet Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.0861 of 2017 under Sections 302, 394, 411, IPC PS- Bazar Shukul, District Amethi on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.7.2023

¶20

-Amit K-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suraj @ Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Bodhraj Alias Bojhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Akash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivakant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Mohd. Sadik Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.