Allowed

Abid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/44971/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail in the second bail application. Despite serious charges, the Court noted excessive delay in trial, prior bail rejection, and one witness examined. Citing Article 21 and Apex Court precedents on speedy trial, bail was granted on personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions and trial conclusion within six months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209191

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44971 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravendra Singh,Anuj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Abid, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2019, under Sections 364,302,201 IPC Police Station Binauli, District- Baghpat, during pendency of trial.

¶8

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 18.10.2021. Since more than two years have passed the matter has been placed before this Court.

¶9

Supplementary afÏdavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant bringing on record the order sheet of the court below which shows that only one prosecution witness has been examined till date.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused, Rizwan, Mohammad Shaid and Imran, have already been enlarged on bail by this court and another coordinate Bench of this court.There is no possibility of early conclusion of trial.This is first implication of the applicant. He is in jail since 25.9.2019 and has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has

¶12

held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

¶13

"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 Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, 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, 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

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 in the 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 ; 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

¶15

Let the applicant be released on bail on his

¶16

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.

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶21

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶22

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

¶25

The registrar(Compliance)of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for compliance within ten days.

¶26

Order Date :- 1.11.2023

¶27

Atul kr. sri.

¶28

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

Abid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid 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

Anushka Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Arbaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Ajit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratipal Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.