Bail application for an accused in a cheating/forgery case who was unnamed in the FIR and jailed since August 2021, with a co-accused already granted bail. Citing Apex Court rulings on speedy trial rights, the court allowed the release on bond and sureties with standard conditions.
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:64350
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5887 of 2024
Applicant :- Dharmendra Kaushal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Maurya, learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Dharmendra Kaushal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 165 of 2020, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,409,506,120-B IPC Police Station Baldirai, District- Sultanpur, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was not named in the First Information Report.His name has subsequently been disclosed during investigation.Named coaccused, Ram Gopal Gupta, has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 21.10.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 11704 of 2021.The applicant is in jail since 10.8.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"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."
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed
Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Atul kr. sri.
Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, in jail since 10.8.2021 with trial pending and a co-accused already bailed, should be released on bail.
Whether prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial warrants enlargement under Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. K.A. NajeebRelied on¶10
AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Relied on¶12
S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dharmendra Kaushal
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
