Adil Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11967

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7205 of 2024

Applicant :- Adil Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi,Sudha Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today enclosing therewith the entire order sheet of the learned trial court is taken on record.

¶7

This is the third bail application as the first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 29.04.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7557 of 2020 and second bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Faiz Alam Khan, J on 30.11.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.8268 of 2023.

¶8

Heard Sri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2020 in FIR/Case Crime No.34 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur and he shall not address this bail application on the prosecution story, but shall address the Court only on the point that despite two orders having been passed by this Court to conclude the trial within time stipulated, the trial has not been concluded till date. As per learned counsel only five prosecution witnesses have been examined, who are mainly the fact and relevant witnesses, though some more witnesses have been introduced by the prosecution and their examination is yet to take place.

¶10

The learned trial court has submitted the status report dated 24.01.2025, which is on record, which provides that six prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are total 16 prosecution witnesses and keeping in view the case before the trial court, the trial may not likely to be concluded shortly. Therefore, the fundamental right of the applicant, i.e. right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena of cases that the accused-applicant may not be kept in incarceration for long period having anticipation to conclude the trial. Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that if the main relevant/fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused-applicant may be considered if he/she is in jail for substantially long period. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the aforesaid grounds may be taken a fresh ground to consider the third bail application of the applicant. The applicant has explained his criminal history. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. have argued that the present applicant is the main accused and as per material/evidence, he has committed the offence in question. So far as the fact of long incarceration or the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial soon is concerned, they have nothing to say but any direction protecting the prosecution may be issued.

¶13

The Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb

¶14

reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held as under :

¶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 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."

¶16

In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) the Apex Court has held as under :

¶17

"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."

¶18

Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered as well as in the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhatisgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.738 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.15971 of 2024) , the Apex Court has held that the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

In the present case, the trial has not been concluded within the time so stipulated by this Court while rejecting the first and

¶20

second bail application of the present applicant. Only five prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in judicial custody for more than 4 years and there is no possibility to conclude the trial shortly. Hence, all the aforesaid reasons may be considered as fresh grounds to allow third bail application in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) and Tapas Kumar Palit (supra) . So, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶21

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant (Adil Khan), involved in aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) 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.

¶24

(ii) 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶25

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶26

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶27

(iv) The applicant 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 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶28

Before parting with, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 BNSS fixing short dates if possible on day to day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

¶29

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶30

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Anand/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Adil Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

Adil Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Neelam Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amrit Lal @ Bachcha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.