Allowed

Pawan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/18905/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a second bail application, holding that prima facie a case for bail is made out due to the applicant's incarceration for a significant period, citing Supreme Court guidelines on speedy trial and access to justice, without adjudicating on the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Prisoner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100843

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18905 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra,Kanchan Ranjan,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant as the first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29445 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh Kumar (since retired) vide order dated 07.01.2021.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 286 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is further submitted that during the course of trial P.W.1-Geeta Devi, who happens to be the informant of the case has been examined before the trial and turned hostile. It is further submitted that another witness P.W.2-Mohit Kumar, who is alleged to be the eye witness of the occurrence, has been examined before the trial and he did not corroborate the prosecution version and turned hostile. It is submitted that in the postmortem report incised wounds have been noted while in the first information report role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant. The allegations of recovery of Iron Patal from the possession of the applicant is false. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 11.06.2020 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶11

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶12

"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."

¶13

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie , a case for bail has been made out.

¶14

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶15

Let applicant, Pawan , involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶17

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Prajapati

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Pad Vishwas Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratap Baitha Vs State of U.P.