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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35156

Court No. - 33

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14960 of 2023

Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

The instant application is being heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Manish Vikram Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 712 of 2019, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station - Wazirganj, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6863 of 2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only the charge has been framed on 16.02.2024. No prosecution witness has been examined till date. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. In the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 712, it has been held as follows:-

¶10

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

¶11

It is further stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The period of incarceration is a valid ground for bail as he is in jail since 01.06.2020. Learned counsel has also referred the provisions of Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. which read as under:-

¶12

"(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any nonbailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date

¶13

fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."

¶14

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial, period of incarceration and also considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Kallu, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶18

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

vi. It is expected from the trial court that the instant case be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶27

Order Date:- 7.5.2024 Siddhant

¶28

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddan vs State of U.P.

Riyasat Ali @ Riyasat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Tiwari @ Sunny Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Kamlawti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.