Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42305

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4069 of 2024

Appellant :- Sandeep Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Durga Prasad,Sonu Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dheeraj Awasthi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA-I for the State-opposite party and Shri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1965 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2022, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(2)5, of Act of 1989, P.S. Purva, District - Unnao.

¶9

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 12.08.2024, it is stated that the appellant is in jail since 11.07.2022 and the trial has not been concluded. In this view of the matter, the period of incarceration of the appellant is more than three years.

¶10

It is also stated that co-accused namely Ram Saini and Naresh Saini have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2703 of 2022, a copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure no. 10 to the memo of appeal.

¶11

It is also stated that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak as according to the charge-sheet, the prosecution would examine as many as nineteen witnesses, in total.

¶12

It is further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspect of the case particularly, the period of incarceration, the stage of the trial as also the fact that on account of witnesses of the prosecution which are remained to be examined the chances of conclusion of trial in near future is bleak, the applicant, who has no criminal history, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not

¶13

misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that incarceration period is much higher in the present case and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 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) , 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:-

¶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 (supra) , the Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶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

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of

¶19

this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505 . The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶20

"4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner."

¶21

(Emphasis supplied)

¶22

Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA-I for the State-opposite party and Shri Dheeraj Awasthi, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of bail and stated that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. However, they also could not dispute the aforesaid particularly period of incarceration and the chances of conclusion of trial in near future which appears to be bleak and that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶23

Considered the aforesaid and perusal of the record.

¶24

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record and period of incarceration i.e. three years as also that chances of conclusion of trial in near future and the submission of counsel for the appellant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any crime/offense nor he would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as also that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, this Court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and is of the view that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

The order dated 12.08.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1965 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2022, under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)5, of Act of 1989, P.S. Purva, District - Unnao is set aside.

¶26

Let appellant - Sandeep, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶27

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶28

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶29

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶30

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(v) 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.

¶32

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶33

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶34

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶35

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶37

Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶38

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

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Pranav Mehrotra @ Ansh Thru. His Father Subham Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mangu Prasad Vs Mohd. Ashik

Devesh Katiyar Alias Devesh Kumar Katiyar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Peshkar vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko.

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Prin. Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Deptt. Lko.