The court granted bail to an undertrial applicant involved in an explosion case at an illegal factory, considering overcrowding and investigative uncertainty absent merit assessment.
Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.
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:238579
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50595 of 2023
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Vaidh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadrul Islam Jafri,Ambreen Masroor,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pramod Kumar Vaidh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2023, under Sections 304, 268, 269, 285, 286 IPC and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster And Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of trial.
There are allegations in the FIR that an illegal cracker factory was being running by named co-accused, Raj Kumar and named coaccused, Vinod and Pramod, were also working with him. On the fateful day, a explosion took place and seven persons died.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has surfaced on the confessional statement of co-accused, Raj Kumar, wherein he has stated that the applicant was partner in business. He has submitted that there is no evidence that applicant is partner in the aforesaid factory. Brother of applicant and his sister-in-law, Babita, and one uncle died in the alleged incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 3.4.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view 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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 16.12.2023 Ruchi Agrahari
Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, who is an accused in a case involving the explosion of an illegal cracker factory resulting in deaths, should be released on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I.Referred¶13
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Pramod Kumar Vaidh
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
