Allowed

Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023BAIL/40951/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a repeat bail application, the court allowed the applicant to be released on bail after exceeding 11 years in custody despite the serious nature of the offence. The court held that without attributing trial delay to the applicant, bail was granted without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond with two sureties and imposition of standard conditions against tampering with evidence and misuse of liberty.

Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203515

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40951 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mrs. Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicantSandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 864 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2012 (State Vs. Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji) under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar

¶9

First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by an order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6946 of 2013 ( Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Post @ Neta Ji Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, order dated 19.10.2016 is reproduced herein under:

¶10

" वररममनदमणणणकपककररजममनरपमररनमपतआववदक / अभभययकदमरममय 0 अ 0 सस 0 864 सनन 2011, अनरर धमरम 302, 201 भम 0 दस 0 भव 0, रमनमननबसरम , जजलमकमनपयरनररममजममनर परमयककरनवहवरयपसरयरभकयमरयमहह।

¶11

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमनवपपरकशपरपतदमजखलभकयम , इसवपतमवललपररखमजमय।

¶12

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमएवसभवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमककसयनमररमपतमवललकम पररशललनभकयम।

¶13

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमनवरकरपसरयरभकयमभकयहपररणसरभरजनयसमकयकममममलम हहररमभकसलनवआववदकककममरकमओसककहतयमकररवनहहदवखमररमआववदकककममरकमओस ककहतयमकरनवकमककईहवरयकनहहरम , इसजलएउसकवदमरमममरकमओसककहतयमकरनवकक ककईससभमवनमनहहहह।यहभलबहसककरयलभककववलरलनमदयबवकवसममनवआववदककवदमरम टवललफकनपरजयमरकमइकबमलकरनमबरमयमरयमहह , इसकवअलमवमआववदककवजखलमफऔर ककईसमकयनहहहहररमआववदकभद 0 31-10-2011 सवजवलममहह , इसजलएआववदककक जममनरपरछकणभदयमजमय।

¶14

भवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमनवजममनरकमभवरकधकररवहहएरकरपसरयरभकयमभकयह दकहरवहतयमकमणणकममममलमहहररमआववदकनवअपनलपतनलररमउसककपयतलजकउसकव पहलवपभरसवरल , ककभनमरमरपसवहतयमकरकव , उनकवशवककभशनमखरनहकपमए , इसकम पयमसभकयमहहररमआववदकनवअपनलपतनलरमजकयममरलकमजसरकमटकरबहरममरखकर आभदतयकयममरभदववदलकवदरवमजवपररखभदयमररमउसककपयतलककमलकमशवबकरलममबसद करकवरमजमरममकवदरवमजवपररखभदयमररमइनदकननलमशनककभशनमखरममरकमरमजकयममरल ककदपसरलपयतलरलनमदयबवनवकक।यहभलबहसककरयलभकआववदकककभनशमसदवहलपरघटनममम पययकरणमसमवआरलभलबरममदहहयलहहररमआरलपरखपनलरमहहआपमयमरयमहहररम आरलसवपतनलकमरलमकमटनवकमसमररनउसकवशवपरलकरआखयमसवभलहकरमहह , इस पकमरआववदककवजखलमफपररणसरभरजनयसमकयहह , इसजलएआववदकककजममनरपरन छकणमजमय।

¶15

भवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमकवरकरकवपररपवकयमममममलवकवसमसररथयनएवस पररणसरभरयनककदवखरवहहए , वमदकव रयरदकषपरभबनमककईभटपपरलभकएहहए , आववदक / अभभययकककजममनरपरछकणनमउभचरपरलरनहहहकरमहह।

¶16

रदनयसमरआववदकसनदलपदलभकरउफरननहमपपरउफरनवरमजलकमजममनरपमररनमपत भनरसरभकयमजमरमहह।

¶17

भवचमररनयमयमलयकवपलठमसलनअजधकमरलककभनदरभशरभकयमजमरमहहभकववइसमममलवसव ससबसजधरसतपरलकरकमभनसरमरर , इसआदवशककपभरजलभपपमपहकनवकवबमदपमरभमकरम कवआधमरपर , यभदहकसकवरक 6 ममहकवअनदरकरनवकमपयमसकरम। "

¶18

6 . Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is jail since 31.10.2011. As such applicant has under gone more than 11 years and 11 months of incarceration. The trial against applicant commenced with the committal order dated 18.05.2012. Upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not been examined even when there are as many as 47 witnesses nominated in the charge sheet. Applicant is in custody, therefore, applicant cannot be held

¶19

responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in R. S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay (1992) 1 SCC 275 . With reference to above she submits that an accused has the right to speedy trial. The delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to applicant. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Attention of the Court was then invited to the judgement of Apex Court in Saudan Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that if an applicant has remained under incarceration for a period of more than 10 years, he should be enlarged on bail. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶20

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He further contends that applicant is guilty of causing murder of his wife and daughter by a sharp edged weapon and thereafter heads of the deceased were separated to make them unidentifiable. He therefore submits that considering the gruesome nature of the crime committed by applicant he does not deserve any sympathy by this court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is in

¶22

jail since 31.10.2011, trial of the applicant commenced with the committal order dated 18.05.2012, in spite of the fact that a period of 11 years and 8 months has rolled by from the date of committal order, the trial of applicant has not yet concluded, there are 47 witnesses nominated in the charge-sheet, upto this stage statement of all the prosecution witnesses have not yet been recorded by the trial court, the judgement of Apex Court in A. R. Antulay (supra), since applicant is in custody therefore he cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial and therefore irrespective of the submission raised by learned counsel for applicant in opposition to the present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the present repeat application for bail is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and 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:-

¶25

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶26

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶28

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶29

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send her to prison.

¶30

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 YK

¶31

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

Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji 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

Akash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh @ Toni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kamal Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.

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

Yashpal Yadav Vs State of U.P.