Dismissed

Ram Naresh @ Khuni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2023BAIL/23687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench rejected a second bail application filed in a heinous case under Sections 396, 412 IPC. While acknowledging a Supreme Court precedent on detention duration, the court distinguished it based on absconding co-accused. The court ordered the trial court to separate and expedite the applicant's trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; direction to trial court to separate applicant's trial within a week and conclude it hastily.

Ram Naresh @ Khuni Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23687 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh @ Khuni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jata Shankar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Varun Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Ram Naresh @ Khuni, who is involved in Case Crime 231 of 2019, under Sections 396, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Pinahat, District Agra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16538 of 2020.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 04.12.2019 but his trial has not been concluded, therefore, he may be released on bail in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K. A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that there are total seven accused persons in this case. Though the applicant is in jail but other co-accused persons who have been granted bail are not appearing before the trial Court, therefore, trial of the applicant could not proceed effectively. It also pointed out that on 23.09.2021, non-bailalbe warrant has been issued to co-accused Updesh, Maniram, Bhagwan @ Rahul and Vijendra. On 25.04.2022, non-bailable warrant has been issued to co-accused Updesh,V.P.@ Vasudev and Vijendra and on 17.01.2023, non-bailable warrant has been issued

¶10

to co-accused Indrapal and Updesh. Lastly it is submitted that in case applicant who is main accused in this case is released on bail there will be every possibility of his also absconding.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that except the detention period as noted above no other ground has been pressed on behalf of the accused-applicant. The applicant is being prosecuted in a heinous offence under Section 396 and 412 I.P.C., out of which Section 396 I.P.C is punishable with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment which may be extend to ten years. The trial is being lingered on by the accused persons adopting different modus-operandi and some of the accused who have been granted bail are absconding and not appearing even after issuing non-bailable warrant against them. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K. A. Najeeb (supra) but this Court is of the view that each case turns on its own facts and circumstances, even a little difference between two cases may alter the entire aspect of the matter, therefore, said judgment is not helpful to the applicant as the same is distinguishable on the facts of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find good ground to release the applicant on bail on the ground of detention period of the applicant in a heinous offence but deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to separate the trial of the applicant and conclude the same at earliest.

¶12

Accordingly the bail application of the applicant is rejected .

¶13

Trial Court is directed to separate the trial of the applicant within a week from the date of production of copy of this order and conclude the same at earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the provisions provided under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra shall ensure the production of prosecution witnesses before the

¶15

trial Court on the date fixed.

¶16

Copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra as well as to the trial court to ensure the compliance of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.4.2023 Saurabh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh @ Khuni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh @ Khuni 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

Sonu @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indresh Pal Vs State of U.P.