Allowed

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024/2588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application in a dowry death and murder case pressed solely on the ground of trial delay; applicant jailed since June 2020 with only one witness examined and 17 pending. Relying on Apex Court rulings on long incarceration, the court granted bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions on evidence tampering, trial cooperation and no criminal activity.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74348

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2588 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.263 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Motipur, District- Bahraich.

¶8

3. This is the second bail application. First bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7688 of 2020 was rejected for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2022.

¶9

4. The present bail application has been pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant only on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

¶10

5. It is further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2020 and till date only one witness of fact, i.e. complainant (P.W.1) has been examined before the trial court and 17 witnesses are yet to be examined and in this view of the matter of the case, possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, as such, taking note of the period of incarceration i.e. about more than 4 years, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 25.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2702 of 2022 (Akeel vs. State of U.P.) .

¶11

6. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The

¶12

Director General Bureau of Investigation , passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020) , as per which, bail can be granted 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 period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-

¶13

"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."

¶14

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶15

"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."

¶16

8. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and he will cooperate in trial. The prayer is to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶17

9. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant particularly the period of incarceration as also settled proposition of law in this regard.

¶18

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the period of incarceration i.e. near about 4 years

¶19

and also that the statements of 17 witnesses have to be recorded before the trial court and also the applicant has no criminal history, as indicated in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and also that it appears that the applicant is not in a position to influence the witnesses of the prosecution who have to be examined before the trial court and the judgments, referred above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶20

11. Let the applicant- Pappu be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

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

¶24

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

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

¶26

14. Observations made hereinabove by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Anand/-

¶28

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

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Jainitya Kumar Jaiyswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Karamveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sajnu Shah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Saran Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Noor Saba Ansari Thru. Her Husband Mohammad Iliyas vs Kamruddeen Ansari and 4 Others

Haroon @ Mohd. Haroon vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others