Allowed

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/2631/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the third bail application of Pankaj Kumar, who was in remand for over six years due to delays. The court relied on the long incarceration and delay in trial conclusion to issue the order.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including presence on fixed dates and no seeking of adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19270

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2631 of 2023 Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home At Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aatreya Tripathi, learned A.G.A.

¶7

This is the third bail application. First and second bail applications have been rejected on 11.01.2019 & 9.12.2021 by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. (since retired) vide Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 4885 of 2018 and 13752 of 2021 respectively.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 19.1.2018 in Case Crime No. 11/2018, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 376, 34 IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Hargawn, District Sitapur. The status report was called from the learned trial court and report dated 13.2.2024 has been filed by the learned trial court which is on record. The said report shows that out of total 44 prosecution witnesses till now only 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Now the examination of the then Inspector at police station concerned is to be examined.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have named or alleged against the petitioner. He has further submitted that there are total 44 prosecution witnesses and out of those only 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He has lastly submitted for the purposes of bail that in the given circumstances, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future inasmuch as twenty six prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Thereafter, defense witnesses would be examined and after following the required formalities, the trial would be concluded but it will take much time. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) wherein it has been held that if the accused person is in jail for substantially long period and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, his bail application may be considered.

¶10

Attention has been drawn towards the Annexure R.A.-2 which are orders dated 27.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2958 of 2023 (Dileep Sharma vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 12.6.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3605 of 2023 (Mukesh vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the co-accused namely, Dileep Sharma and Mukesh have been granted bail by this Court. Though the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the aforesaid co-accused persons but if the case of the applicant is considered only on the basis of allegation, at least the case of the present applicant is having parity with the above named accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the involvement of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused Naveen Kumar Gupta.

¶11

Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that since this is the third bail application, therefore, the same may be rejected as no new ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, on being confronted on the point that the name of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accsued, Naveen Kumar Gupta, and the fact that the co-accused, Dileep Sharma and Mukesh, have been granted bail by this Court, he could not dispute the facts.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

Considering the long period of incarceration of the applicant, the fact that the co-accused persons namely, Dileep Sharma and Mukesh, have been granted bail by this Court and that there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) , the present applicant may be granted bail.

¶15

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, the present bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Pankaj Kumar , involved in aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 fails 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 1.3.2024/Om

¶25

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at 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

Satish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Capt Gurpreet Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. Civil Aviation Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Victim/Complainant in Case Crime No. 484/2023 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Udayraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Verma Alias Tillu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Dr. R.K. Shrivastava @ Ratnesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Govt. Lko. and Another