Allowed

Karan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/35917/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under IPC sections 120B, 420, and 506, citing prolonged trial delays caused by non-cooperative prosecution witnesses and the lack of credible evidence despite inordinate jail time.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions preventing tampering and ensuring trial appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176855

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35917 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Karan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Tomar,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application. Name of counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list. Learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

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.

¶8

This is the second bail application.

¶9

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2020 at Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, under Section 120B, 420, 506 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since

¶10

08.09.2022.

¶11

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 02.01.2023.

¶12

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:

¶13

The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 14 witnesses to bring home the charges. However, till date not a single prosecution witnesse has been examined.

¶14

According to the said report, various prosecution witnesses including the first informant-P.W.1 Reena Devi have not responded to the summons. Coercive measures in the nature of bailable and non bailable warrants have been taken out against P.W.1. Evidently the prosecution witnesses are not cooperating with the trial proceedings and the police authorities have failed to execute the coercive measures taken out by the learned trial court which is leading to indefinite delay in the trial.

¶15

The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the detention of the applicant.

¶16

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future. The applicant is not

¶17

responsible for the delay in the trial.

¶18

Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

¶19

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶20

The applicant never influenced witnesses and tampered with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Karan Singh 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

¶25

be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Bijnor 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.

¶30

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Bijnor for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above. Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Dhananjai

¶31

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh 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

Shakir Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P.

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

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