The Court reconsidered the bail application of Rahul, who had been in custody since November 2018. Relying on the Apex Court's directive in Paras Ram Vishnoi regarding prolonged custodial period, the Court held that a significant delay in trial constitutes a fresh ground for bail.
Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified 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.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51884 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Beenu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2022. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the first bail application this Court had directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months, but the same is pending as yet. It is further submitted that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 27.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) has observed as under :
"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then a period of
incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submits that prima facie offence against the accused applicant is made out and in case applicant is release on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail, but, he could not disputed the aforesaid facts.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, looking to the stage of trial which is not going to be concluded in near future, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) , 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 involved in Case Crime No. 373 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rajpura District Sambhal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Bhanu
Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh ground for bail exists due to prolonged custody and delayed trial despite prior directions?
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail considering the nature of offences and length of incarceration?
Whether bail can be granted without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶8
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul
State of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
