Allowed

Km. Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024/2528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a third bail application by an accused woman in an IPC 302 case pending since 2020. The court granted bail noting that two prior directions to the trial court to conclude the trial within a year remained unfulfilled, indicating that the applicant would suffer undue delay.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Km. Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54777

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2528 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Km. Neeraj

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This 3rd bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 53 of 2020, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no witness of the incident and merely on the basis of confessional statement, the applicant has been made accused in the present case and charge sheet has also been filed against her. It is also submitted that while rejecting the 1st bail application vide order dated 04.03.2022, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year, in accordance with law. OfÏce was also directed to communicate the said order to the trial court as well as Superintendent of Police and Joint Director (Prosecution), Ambedkar Nagar for necessary compliance. This Court again while rejecting the 2nd bail application vide order dated 21.04.2023, directed the trial court to conclude the trial without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that till today, the trial has not been concluded and only witnesses of fact have been examined, who have not supported the prosecution version. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the applicant, who is a

¶10

lady and has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 27.02.2020. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but does not dispute the fact that twice the direction was issued to the trial court for conclusion of trial, but till today, the trial has not been concluded.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application, statement of witnesses before the trial court as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that twice the direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the trial of the case in question, firstly on 04.03.2022 and secondly on 21.04.2023, but till today, the trial has not been concluded. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant, who is in jail since 27.02.2020 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Application stands allowed.

¶14

Let applicant -Km. Neeraj be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 53 of 2020, on her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶16

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 VKS

¶24

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

Km. Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munni Lal Yadav Vs Rajiv Agarwal Vice Chairman Lucknow Development and Another

Anil Kumar Mogha Vs Rajesh Rai, Chairman and Managing Director I.T.I. Ltd., Rae Bareli and Another

Ram Chandra Yadav Vs Shahzad Ahmad Ansari, Finance Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs Smt. Akriti Srivastava, Tahsildar, Tahsil Sarojani Nagar Distt. Lko.

Vidya Bhushan Mishra vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Lko.

Km. Neeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.