Allowed

Sani v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023BAIL/7083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Sani, in a bail application where previous rejection was followed by a direction to expedite the trial. The court relied on the principle that prolonged custody without near-future trial conclusion is a valid ground for bail under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence and abandonment of adjournments.

Sani Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7083 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of applicant Sani was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2022.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parte bandi. The new ground that 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 yet and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the same. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 22.05.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble 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 :

¶9

"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."

¶10

In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there

¶11

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.

¶12

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 he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

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 dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, delay in conclusion of trial and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Sani involved in Case Crime No. 178 of 2021, under Sections 504, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Chaprauli, District Baghpat 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.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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

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

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82

¶19

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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2023

¶23

Bhanu

¶24

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

Sani v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sani 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

Lal Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bobby Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Safat @ Sablu Khan Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Ali Vs State of U.P.

Salma Kaul @ Shivani Vs State of U.P.

Manish @ Manvendra Singh Vs State of U.P.