Allowed

Sangram Singh @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/51995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Sangram Singh @ Raju, who was in custody for a significant period due to trial delays. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding indefinite detention and Article 21 rights.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties on specific conditions regarding presence at court.

Sangram Singh @ Raju Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118443

¶2

Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51995 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sangram Singh @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected vide orders dated 20.09.2022.

¶7

The new ground that has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the second 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 still pending. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in incarceration since 29.01.2022 and and there is no possibility of trial to be concluded in near future. It is further submitted that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. his name has come into light during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Raju Singh has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51322 of 2022 and applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submission drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 . Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-

¶9

"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

¶10

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."

¶11

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:

¶12

"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."

¶13

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.

¶14

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 previous criminal history.

¶15

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶16

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of

¶17

punishment which conviction will entail, the character and criminal history of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, delay in conclusion of trial, grant of bail to similarly situated co-accused, considering the period of incarceration of accused applicant in jail, dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) and and period of incarceration of applicant in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶18

Let the applicant Sangram Singh @ Raju involved in Case Crime No. 330 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶20

(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶21

(iii) 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 sufficient 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 Bhanu

¶24

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangram Singh @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Singh @ Raju 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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Niraj Kumar Sharma @ Niraj Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Anil Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Sahadat Ali Vs State of U.P.