Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. High Court ordered release on personal bond and two sureties, citing long incarceration, overcrowding, and delays, without expressing opinion on merits of accused.
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including clauses for trial expeditiously conclusion.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157047
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9882 of 2023
Applicant :- Roshan Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife by way of burning.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the wife of the applicant was 80% disabled. She committed suicide by way of burning. Applicant alleges false implication in this case. He is in jail since 29.09.2016. Before the trial six out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Trial will take time to conclude.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"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 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."
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 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs.
C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in 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.
Let the applicant, Roshan Thakur, involved in Case Crime No.777 of 2016, S. T. No. 42 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad 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.
(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, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year.
Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within ten days.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023 SS
Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail given the delay in trial and overcrowding in jails.
Whether the applicant being an undertrial prisoner suffering long incarceration qualifies for bail without scrutinizing merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. K.A. NajeebExplained¶10
re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Explained¶12
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.
Roshan Thakur
Siddharth
Surenar Singh Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Siddharth and Surenar Singh Narang
Parties & counsel
