The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Jhabbar Singh. The court rejected the prosecution's opposition regarding alleged delay in trial and imposed conditions for bail.
The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and procedural compliance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136520
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26300 of 2023
Applicant :- Jhabbar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Shiromani Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Jhabbar Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.699 of 2010 (Sessions Trial No.461 of 2010), under Sections 147, 148, 304 and 323 IPC, police station Shahbad, district Rampur, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that 24.02.2023 was the date fixed in aforementioned trial. The applicant had appeared before the court on the said date. One of the witnesses, namely, S.I. Chaman Singh appeared before the court for giving his deposition. His statement-in-chief was accordingly recorded. However, as the earlier counsel for applicant before the court below, namely, Mr. Jaideep Mathur refused to do pairvi, accordingly, applicant filed an application seeking adjournment. This application filed by applicant was rejected by the court below and simultaneously applicant was taken into custody by recording a finding that the applicant is delaying the proceeding of the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant with reference to the order dated 24.02.2023 submitted that conclusion recorded by the court below in the order dated 24.02.2023 does not commensurate with the facts noted in the earlier part of the order dated 24.02.2023. Even otherwise applicant has been regularly attending the court proceedings. As such there cannot be any intention on the part of applicant to delay the trial. To the contrary, on 24.02.2023, exemption application was filed by other coaccused and not by the applicant. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
In view of above, present application succeed and is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Jhabbar Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 sufÏcient 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 11.7.2023. Rks.
Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail after a previous court rejected his adjournment application due to alleged delay in proceedings.
Whether the applicant intended to delay the trial despite appearing regularly in court proceedings.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jhabbar Singh
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
