Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99338

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3758 of 2023

Applicant :- Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mayank Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Certified copy of the order sheets filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 208 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2013. Thereafter, he remained absent during trial and on 28.09.2015 nonbailable warrants were issued against him. It is further contended that applicant is an illiterate person and he is not much aware about the legal obligation. After his release, he was regular in contact with his counsel but his counsel did not convey any information regarding non-bailable warrants issued against him. It is further submitted that applicant deliberately did not commit any mistake in appearing before the trial court. Due to misguidance of the counsel, he could not appear before the trial court. Applicant was arrested by the police and produced before the trial court on 28.06.2019 and since then he is languishing in jail. It

¶10

is further submitted that none of the witness examined as yet before the trial Court. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para-3 of the supplementary afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. It is further submitted that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that applicant has already misused the liberty of bail and he not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶13

"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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. 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, the 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."

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject

¶16

to the following conditions:

¶17

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶18

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 AKT

¶23

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

Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Raj Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Pad Vishwas Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gul Mohammad Vs State of U.P.