Hon'ble High Court at Lucknow allowed a third bail application in a murder case. Despite prior rejections, the court granted bail due to the prolonged trial delay (only 4 of 27 witnesses examined) and lack of evidence of tampering.
Nagina Singh to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29388
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3464 of 2024
Applicant :- Nagina Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Singh,Brijendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Srivastava,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the record.
This is the third bail application. The second bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.1750 of 2023 was dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 20.03.2023.
The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.019 of 2022, under Sections 302, 406 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Millarea, District Raebareli.
While rejecting the second bail application trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year. The second bail rejection order dated 20.03.2023 is extracted below:-
"Heard Shri Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.019 of 2022, under Sections 302, 406 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Millarea, District Raebareli.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application
has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3570 of 2022. The said bail order reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.019 of 2022, under Sections 302, 406 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Millarea, District Raebareli.
3. Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown person; the deceased was branch manager of Bank of Baroda, Branch Deeh, Raebareli; the accused-applicant and the deceased became friend; allegation is that the accused-applicant took the deceased to show him a plot of land for construction of house and took some advance; neither the plot was registered in the name of the deceased nor money, taken in advance, was returned to him; the deceased was insisting upon taking the money back and for this reason he got killed by the accusedapplicant; postmortem report discloses following antemortem injuries received by the deceased:-
"1. L/W of size 1cm x 1cm in circular shape cavity deep present at 2cm parallel to (Lt) nipple at chest towards axilla;
2. L/W of size 1cm x 1cm x cavity deep in circular shape present at 2cm parallel to (Lt) nipple at chest level sternum;
3. L.W. of size 1cm x 1cm x cavity deep in circular shape present 3cm below (Lt) nipple at the chest;
4. L.W. of size 1cm x cavity deep is circular shape present at 2cm below injury no. 3;
5. L.W. of size 3cm x 1cm x cavity deep in circular shape present at 2cm away from injury no. 2 towards sternum; and
6. Exit wound of size 1.3 cm x 1cm x cavity deep with everted margin present on back 2cm away (Lt) tender vertebra."
4. From possession of the accused-applicant, Swift Dzire Car and one alleged weapon of assault i.e. country made pistol of 315 Bore was recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that there is nothing on record which suggests that money transaction took place between the accused-applicant and the deceased.
6. Mr. Rajeev Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the bail and submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record, which suggests involvement of the accusedapplicant in commission of the offence. Mr. Veer Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed bail and submitted that it is the accused-applicant who killed the deceased.
7. Considering the submission and taking into consideration heinousness of the offence and its societal impact, this Court does not find it a case for bail. Hence, the bail plea is refused and the application is rejected. However, it is provided that if the witnesses of fact do not support the prosecution case, during trial, the accused-applicant may revive his bail plea, if so advised.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and record statement of witnesses of fact as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served/submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant"
There is no change circumstance which warrants this Court to enlarge/release accused-applicant on bail at this stage.
In view thereof, the present second bail application is hereby rejected.
However, trial court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to trial court concerned for necessary compliance."
Learned counsel for applicant submits that in spite of the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the trial was directed to be expedited and concluded within one year but till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, trial is going on at a very slow pace. He submits that fact witnesses have been examined who have not levelled any allegation against the applicant while deposing before the court. Applicant has no previous criminal history. Total 27 witnesses are proposed to be examined out of that only four have been examined, trial will take long time. Applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2022.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer however, could not dispute these facts.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2022, order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.03.2023 and out of 27 prosecution witnesses only four witnesses have been examined so far and there is no chance of tampering the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant Nagina Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is a fit case for bail in a murder investigation given the slow pace of trial and absence of new incriminating material.
Whether the delay in examination of prosecution witnesses due diligence by the trial court warrants interim relief.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Nagina Singh
State Of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
