Allowed

Rajinder Saini v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/20807/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench, with ex-parte assistance from learned members of the Bar acting as amicus curiae due to an applicant counsel strike, granted bail to the accused. The Court relied on inordinate trial delays, absence of witnesses, and lack of credible evidence implicateing the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnished personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence/witnesses and ensuring trial court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176875

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20807 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajinder Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh,Awaneesha Kumar,Mahesh Kumar Sahani

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶8

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The name of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶9

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶10

By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.90 of 2022 at Police Station-Kolhui, District-Maharajganj under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 308, 504 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 03.01.2023.

¶11

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by

¶12

this Court on 02.02.2023.

¶13

The following arguments made by learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶14

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigations and has joined the trial proceedings.

¶15

The applicant has not tampered with the evidence nor has he influenced any witness.

¶16

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial.

¶17

The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the P.Ws. 4 and 5 did not appear in court on various appointed dates for examination. The learned trial court has taken out bailable warrants to compel the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses.

¶18

From the report sent by the learned trial court it is also evident that some of the witnesses are not cooperating in the trial proceedings and the police has failed in its duties to compel appearance of the witnesses despite orders of the Court.

¶19

The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial proceedings to enlarge the period of detention of the applicant.

¶20

From the evidence tendered during the trial so far the applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted the grievous injuries on the person of the injured.

¶21

Inordinate delay in the trial will lead to indefinite detention of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. Right of the applicant to a speedy trial has been violated.

¶22

The records available with the learned A.G.A. disclose that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶23

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶24

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant-Rajinder Saini be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or

¶27

influence any witness during the trial.

¶28

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

¶29

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in districtMaharajganj are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶30

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Maharajganj shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶31

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Maharajganj for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶32

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajinder Saini v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Saini 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakir Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P.

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