The High Court allowed the second bail application of the applicant, Rahul Singh, accused under Sections 498A, 504, 304-B IPC. The grant was based on the newly hostile prosecution witness, lack of criminal history, and jail overcrowding, directing a speedy trial.
Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196215
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43101 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is second bail application. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 19.09.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fresh ground for filing this bail application is that father of the deceased has been examined before the trial court as PW-II. He has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Applicant alleges false implication in this case. He is in jail since 02.08.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the 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 trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the 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.
Let the applicant, Rahul Singh, involved in Case Crime No.823 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 504, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Beta-2 Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year.
Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within ten days.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023 SS
Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant makes out a case for bail given the hostile prosecution witness and overcrowding in jails.
What conditions must be imposed on the grant of bail under the Episcopal supervision of the applicants?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Rahul Singh
Siddharth
Surender Singh Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
