Allowed

Phool Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024/1396/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted a second bail application, allowing the applicant to be released on bond and sureties. The court held that given the long period of incarceration and the likelihood of indefinite trial delay after fact witnesses were examined, bail was justified based on Apex Court precedents regarding speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond with two sureties; directed applicant to undertake not to seek adjournments and appear in person for specific trial stages.

Phool Chand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32128

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1396 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Phool Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag.S.Kaalesh,Ashok Kumar Yadava,Vandana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

¶7

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble R.K. Gautam, J. vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in Bail No.6663 of 2021.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 10.08.2020 in Case Crime No. 0408 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the present bail application is second bail application, therefore, she will not address the Court on the points which have already been argued before this Court at the time of rejection of first bail application but she will only press those points which may be considered as new grounds to consider the second bail application.

¶10

She has submitted that in the present case, there are total 16 prosecution witnesses, out of those 4 witnesses are fact witnesses, who may be said as star witnesses, have been examined, inasmuch as one of them is informant/complainant. She has further submitted that this has been the view of Hon'ble Apex Court that if all the fact witnesses have been examined and the period of incarceration of the accused-applicant is long, this ground may be considered as a new ground.

¶11

She has further submitted that present applicant has been chargesheeted under Section 304 IPC and even if the guilt is proved, the applicant may be awarded maximum punishment of 10 years and out of such period he has already served about four years.

¶12

During investigation, the fact emerges that the incident in question was an outcome of sudden provocation as the present applicant was not having any intention or motive to kill the deceased. The learned counsel has reiterated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶13

She has also submitted that the pace in which the trial proceedings are going on, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, inasmuch still 8 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses may be examined and it will take some more time thereafter to conclude the trial, therefore this ground may also be considered, looking into the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail.

¶14

She has further submitted that if the present applicant is released on bail, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the present applicant has been assigned the role of having iron rod to assault the victim. The statements of the fact witnesses, which have been enclosed with the bail application, clearly reveal that that the specific role of assault through iron rod has been attributed to the present applicant, therefore, the preset bail application may be rejected.

¶16

However, on being confronted on the point that since all the fact witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, as to why the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail may not be considered, learned AGA has submitted that this is discretion of this Court to pass any appropriate order protecting the interest of the prosecution of the trial.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606 granting bail to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration of that accused, therefore, they were entitled for bail. Para 15 of the case K.A.Najeeb (supra) is being reproduced here-in-below:

¶18

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty

¶19

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."

¶20

The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) in para 4 has observed as under:

¶21

"4. 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."

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered.

¶23

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for about 4 years; almost the fact and material witnesses have been examined; while rejecting the first bail application, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C. but the trial proceedings could not be expedited, therefore, it may be considered as a new ground to consider this second bail application; besides, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly inasmuch as there are total 16 prosecution witnesses and only 04 prosecution witnesses, mainly fact witnesses, have been examined, so considering the aforesaid dictums of Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail and thus, this second bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Phool Chand be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶25

(i) 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.

¶26

(ii) 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.

¶27

(iii) 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 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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶30

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶31

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 kkv/

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Phool Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ramrati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tushar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Anara Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Manish Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Anubhav Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.