The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant, holding that the trial court's rejection order was infirm. Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and the hardship of jail overcrowding.
Appellant released on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to 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:151864
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5949 of 2024
Appellant :- Anoop Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
(i) The appellant 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.
(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The appellant 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 the trial court.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
Order Date :- 18.9.2024 PS
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the undertrial appellant is entitled to bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and fundamental right to speedy trial?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. K.A. NajeebRelied on¶13
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Anoop Tiwari
State of U.P.
Another
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
