Allowed

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Allahabad HC8 May 2024/4042/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder, citing prolonged detention and trial delay. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents concerning the right to a speedy trial and indefinite detention, allowing release subject to standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to undertaking conditions.

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) Vs State… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4042 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dileep Singh Son Of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Counsel for Applicant :- M.K. Singh Bhardwaj,Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.568 of 2019, under Sections-302 IPC relating to Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh.

¶7

This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court on 29.07.2021. While pressing this bail application, it is stated that after the order dated 29.07.2021 whereby the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, the trial court framed charges against the applicant on 04.08.2021 and till date no witness of the prosecution has been examined before the trial court as would appear from the order sheet of the trial court annexed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 08.04.2023.

¶8

It is stated that the informant for the purposes of recording his statement was summoned but till date the informant has not been turned up.

¶9

It is further stated that the applicant is in jail since 03.11.2019 i.e. for about 4 and a half years for committing no offence and trial is not proceeding in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is stated that infact it is a case of suicide by the wife of the applicant and mother of the applicant and to establish, it is stated that the Autopsy Surgeon found a ligature mark over the neck on the body of the wife of the applicant and cause of death as shown by the Autopsy Surgeon is antemortem hanging, and in regard to mother of the applicant, the Autopsy Surgeon could not ascertain the reasons of death and viscera is preserved and till date, viscera report has not been placed on record by the prosecution.

¶11

It is further submitted that with an oblique motive the informant, brother-in-law of the applicant, lodged the FIR implicating the applicant preferring an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after about 6 months, whereupon the trial court passed the order and in

¶12

compliance thereof, the FIR was lodged on 13.06.2019 indicating the incident of 13.01.2019.

¶13

The FIR is false and concocted which can be deduced from the fact that according to the FIR, the informant and one Kuldeep Singh were present at the place of the crime and both these persons are eye witnesses, however, a perusal of the statement of Km Anypriya Singh, daughter of the applicant, recorded by the investigating officer during investigation, would show that the informant was not present at the place of crime as he left the place in the evening. The relevant portion indicated reads as under:-

¶14

" उसददनममरमममममखखचडडलमकरआयमथमजजशममसमपहलमचलमगयमथम। "

¶15

9. It is stated that if the informant and Kuldeep were present then in that eventuality, they ought to have been witnesses of inquest and would have tried to have lodged the FIR on same day and a bare perusal of the inquest report would show that he was not present at the place of crime and the FIR also indicates that for the first time on 19.01.2019 a letter was written to the Superintendent of Police.

¶16

It is lastly stated that delay in conclusion of trial is also one of the grounds to enlarge the accused on bail. 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 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:-

¶17

"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."

¶18

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:-

¶19

"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."

¶20

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.

¶21

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, the facts related to presence of the informant and Kuldeep Singh at the place of crime and delay in conclusion of trial the period of incarceration and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶22

Let the applicant- Dileep Singh be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.5.2024

¶30

prateek

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmanand and ORS.3 Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamla Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Shivam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ameen Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Hridayram Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others