Allowed

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/4340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of an under-trial accused. The court was moved by the prosecution's failure to appear, resulting in trial delays, and the severe jail overcrowding. invoking Article 21 and a Supreme Court dictum, the judge granted bail without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130556

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4340 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Yadav,Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶8

This court vide order dated 21.04.2023 sought status of trial from the court below which has been received on 27.04.2023. The court below has informed this Court that the prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the Court below despite the order of this Court to conclude the trial within six months. Even the victim has not been produced before the Court below till date.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution is not permitting the trial to proceed. When the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months by the order dated 12.07.2022. He has submitted that the earlier conclusion of trial is not possible. The applicant is in jail since 26.12.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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; considering the dictum of Apex Court

¶12

in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; 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.

¶13

Let the applicant, Dinesh, involved in Case Crime No. 296 of 2021, under Sections- 323, 324, 452, 506, 376 IPC, Police StationKotwali Dehat, District- Etah, 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

X- Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelam Srivastava Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Hoteylal Vs State of U.P.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Vs State of U.P.