Allowed

Mustafa v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023BAIL/3464/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Mustafa, in a dowry death case following Supreme Court dicta on speedy trials and jail overcrowding, imposing strict conditions on his conduct and attendance while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, coupled with conditions against witness tampering, mandatory court appearances, and a direction to the trial court to conclud

Mustafa Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135523

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3464 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Mustafa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Srivastava,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.11.2019, which is not available now.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mustafa, with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 332 of 2019, Case Crime No. 71 of 2019, under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khadda, District- Kushi Nagar (Padrauna) during pendency of trial.

¶10

There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his daughter-in-law in the FIR.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before the trial court, 4 prosecution witnesses out of 23 have been examined. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.4.2019. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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.

¶15

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."

¶16

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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶27

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

Mustafa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Rishu Kushwaha@ Kamal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Keshav Pd. Vs D.D.C. and Others

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others