High Court granted interim bail to the applicant in a bail application filed in a case involving abduction of a minor girl. The court emphasized the right to speedy trial and jail overcrowding while imposing strict conditions.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties; trial directed to be completed within one year.
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. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53979 of 2022
Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard 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, Rahul Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2013, under Sections 363, and 366 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District- Bareilly, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the applicant of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. The sister of the victim has stated before the police that the co-accused, Gajendra, abducted the victim and took her on motorcycle. The applicant was with him on different motorcycle. She further stated that the victim knew the accused persons earlier and used to talk to them on phone. It appears that the victim has willingly eloped with someone else. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 06.06.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
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 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 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.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023 Abhishek
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, Rahul Yadav, is eligible for bail in a trial proceeding for abduction of a minor girl.
Whether the long pendency of the trial and overcrowding in jails warrant granting bail despite the gravity of the offense.
What safeguards need to be imposed on the applicant upon release on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & AnotherFollowed¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul Yadav
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
