Prem Harizan @ Prem Chandra @ Premraidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39746

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4361 of 2025

Applicant :- Prem Harizan @ Prem Chandra @ Premraidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Manish Kumar Verma,Sudhir Kumar,Suhail Kashif Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Himanshu Singh Patel,Rahul Kannojia,Rajesh Kumar Kashyap

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Imliya, District Sultanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 14.02.2018. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 06.09.2021 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in accordance with law and it was also provided that in case the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, it will be open to the applicant to move fresh bail application either before the trial court of this Court. The Registry was also directed to communicate this order to the trial court forthwith. He further submitted that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined but, the trial has not been concluded. He further submitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in the present case in near future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. He further submitted that in case of being enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that main role is assigned to the applicant. He further submitted that eight witnesses have already been examined but he does not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 14.02.2018 and also the fact that at the time of rejecting first bail application of the applicant direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of FIR as well as bail rejection order dated 06.09.2021 whereby the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months and the fact that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined but the trial has not yet been concluded as also the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2018 therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of negligence on the part of prosecution for proper assistance in the trial court.

¶11

Let the applicant Prem Harizan @ Prem Chandra @ Prem Raidas , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(iv) 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 229A IPC.

¶16

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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

¶18

default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 11.7.2025. Rks.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Harizan @ Prem Chandra @ Premraidas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Harizan @ Prem Chandra @ Premraidas v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hanuman Prasad Verma and Another Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Sonkar Conservator of Forest Devi Patan Circle U.P. Gonda

Phool Chandra Shukla Vs Shri Manoj Kumar Sonkar, Conservator of Forest Devi Patan Mandal U.P. Gonda

Afzal Ali Rabiul Hasan Sayyed Vs Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tulsipur, Distt. Balrampur

Mohd. Owais Hashmi Vs Sri Anil Kumar-Iii, Ias, Prin. Secy. Environment, Forest and Climate Change Deptt. Lko. and Others

Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs Dr. Hari Om, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Vocation Education and Skill Development Lko. and Another

Mohd. Afsar Beg Vs Radha Krishan Dhiman Director Sanjay Gandhi P.G. Institute of Medical Science, Lko.