Ankur Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

Ankur Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Ankur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to five conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; (ii) undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present, default treatable as abuse of bail liberty; (iii) presence before the Trial Court on each fixed date personally or as directed, failing which action under Section 229-A IPC; (iv) on misuse of bail liberty and issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; (v) personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds accepted; Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within six months; Registrar (Compliance) to communicate order within 10 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Ankur, in custody since 27.9.2017 in Case Crime No. 667 of 2017 (Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar) amid a stalled trial, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

Court's answer

The Court found force in the applicant's submissions and decided to grant bail keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, one-sided investigation by police ignoring the accused's side, the under-trial applicant's fundamental right to speedy trial, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court's dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil, and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials.

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant was ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to enumerated conditions (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence on each date fixed; consequences under Sections 82 Cr.P.C. and 174-A IPC on misuse; mandatory presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement).

Key takeaways

The court below was directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months; identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted, and the Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate the order to the court concerned within 10 days.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Siddharth, J.), order dated 19.9.2023 (Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:180709) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12348 of 2022 — Applicant Ankur, under-trial since 27.9.2017 in Case Crime No. 667 of 2017 (Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC; Section 3/4 D.P. Act), Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, alleged to have caused dowry death of his wife by burning and named in her dying declaration — trial stalled: only PW-4 examined on 3.2.2020, witnesses not appearing despite non-bailable warrants and notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C.; no criminal history — relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 (para 16) and the dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. (S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgment dated 11.7.2022), and invoking the Article 21 speedy-trial mandate and 5-6 times jail overcrowding by under-trials, bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits — conditions imposed against tampering, adjournment-seeking and absence, with Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 174-A IPC and Section 229-A IPC consequences on default — Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within six months.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180709

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12348 of 2022

Applicant :- Ankur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

List has been revised.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankur, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 667 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, DistrictBulandshahar, during pendency of trial.

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife by way of burning. There is also allegation against him in the dying declaration of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.9.2017. Before the trial court, PW-4 was examined on 3.2.2020. Thereafter witnesses are not turning up despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

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.

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 :-

"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."

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; 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 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 :-

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

(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.

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

(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.

(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 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.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

ground for cancellation of bail.

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

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days.

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad