Allowed

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023BAIL/54263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the third bail application of an under-trial appellant involved in a murder and riot case. The court ordered bail based on jail overcrowding, the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and precedent, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. It directed expeditious trial completion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175795

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54263 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

This is third bail application of the applicant.

¶9

First and Second bail applications of the applicant were rejected on 01.11.2018 and 02.07.2021 by the coordinate Benches of this Court which are not available now.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2015. Co-accused who has been enlarged on bail and the other co-accused are delaying the trial and hence the trial has not been concluded. Part statement of P.W.-1 has only been recorded before the trial Court. Trial may take time to conclude. The applicant has criminal history of five cases explained in supplementary affidavit.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

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 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

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant, Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad, involved in Case Crime No. 328 of 2015, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Naini, District- Allahabad, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶23

In case, the other co-accused persons are not cooperating the trial of the applicant shall be separated by the trial Court and he shall be tried as per the order passed by this Court.

¶24

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Rohit

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Smt Preeti Vs State of U.P.

Gudiya Vs State of U.P.

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others