Allowed

Baljeet Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023BAIL/4252/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Baljeet Singh in a criminal matter under IPC sections 302, 34, 504, and 506. The applicant, jailed for over nine and a half years, argued cross-case pendency violated Article 21. The court allows bail citing the length of custody and the impossibility of concluding related trials soon, without opining on the case's merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4252 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Baljeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Mayank Pratap Singh,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awtar

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.04.2014 and the second bail application was rejected on 11.9.2015.

¶7

Heard Shri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari holding brief of Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call and an illness slip has been sent by the counsel for the informant. So was the case on the previous date on 15.02.2023 and the case was fixed peremptorily for today and the following order was passed:-

¶9

"There is an illness slip of Sri Ram Awtar, learned counsel for the informant. On the previous occasion also, he sent illness slip on 20.10.2022 and 06.02.2023.

¶10

The case is passed over for the day on account of illness of Sri Ram Awtar, learned counsel for the informant.

¶11

Place this application peremptorily on 23.02.2023 in the additional cause list.

¶12

It is made clear that no adjournment shall be given to the learned counsel for the informant on the next date fixed."

¶13

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 495 of 2013, under Sections 302, 34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khutar, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the new ground for enlarging the applicant on bail is that he is languishing in jail for more than 9 and a half years and his fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. Learned counsel has stated that evidence in the present case is complete and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has also been recorded. Only the final arguments and judgement are to be pronounced in the case.

¶15

The peculiar facts of the case are that there is a cross version to the present case which was filed as complaint case no. 559 of 2015 and which was later on changed to complaint case no. 1784 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as per order dated 20.9.2021 of Judicial Magistrate Court no. 28, Shahjahanpur, U.P. the said case was found to be a cross case to the present case. As such the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The said summoning of the accused persons from the side of the informant was challenged by one Gurbel Singh in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C as Application No. 22016 of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2022 and it was ordered that the applicant therein may file a discharge application through his Advocate. Learned counsel has stated that it is settled law as has been held in the case of Nathi Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 1990(Supp) SCC 145, that the cross cases are to be decided and the judgements are to be pronounced together one after the other. Learned counsel has stated that in the present scenario it is not possible that both the judgements may be passed in near future. As even the charge has not been framed in the cross case. Thus there is no likelihood of the trials concluding in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2013. Learned counsel has stated that he is not pressing bail on the ground of merits but on ground of violation of

¶16

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact with respect to the cross case and also that not even the charge has been framed against the accused therein.

¶18

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 , has observed as under:-

¶19

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

¶20

After hearing the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of cross case in the present matter and applicant is languishing in jail for more than 9 and a half years, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Baljeet Singh involved in aforementioned Case Crime No. 495 of 2013, under Sections 302, 34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khutar, District

¶22

Shahjahanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶23

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

¶24

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

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

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

(v) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶30

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Shaswat

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baljeet Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappi Vs State of U.P.

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Vs State of U.P.

Nauminath @ Naumi Vs State of U.P.

Surjeet Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.