JUDGMENT :

1. The present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) is filed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 327/2016 filed under Section 381/342/394/397/411/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Tejinder Kaur, complainant who alleged that the Vinod was employed as domestic help in her house. Vinod along with other co-accused persons committed robbery by entering the complainant house, threatened her with a knife and snatched keys of her almirah and took away Rs.40 lakh cash, one mobile phone and jewellery.

3. After the registration of FIR, the co-accused persons namely Vijay@ Rahul, Raghav, Rakesh, were arrested who admitted commission of alleged offence with other co-accused persons namely, Vinod and Vicky Singh @ Chiku, the present applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated and has not committed any of the alleged offence. At the time of commission of alleged offence, he had gone to his native village Loni, Ghaziabad. The applicant was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused persons.

5. He further submits that the applicant is in custody as an undertrial since last five years, 10 months and 29 days as on the date of filing of this application. The trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the judgment of Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held that a protracted incarceration violates an undertrial’s right to speedy trial and access to justice. Further he relies on Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 825, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasised that the delay in trial and interment for a prolong period as an undertrial must be factored in while dealing with an application for bail.

6. The applicant was declared as proclaimed offender on 06.12.2016 after proceeding under section 82 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the present application on the ground that the applicant was declared as a proclaimed offender and there is recovery of gold earrings and rings at his instance.

8. She further states that since the accused was arrested only after he was declared as a proclaimed offender, there is likelihood of him jumping the bail again.

Reasoning

9. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 and the second bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court by its order dated 22.07.2022.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeev in SLP (Crl) No. 11616 of 2019, while considering the bail to an accused charged for offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) which requires that a bail can only be granted in case the suspect is able to satisfy the twin conditions, held that the long period of incarceration for no fault of the accused can be a ground for grant of bail.

11. In the present case, the chargesheet has already been filed on 25.11.2016 and a supplementary chargesheet was also filed on 16.03.2017.

12. The applicant was arrested on 22.12.2016 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody as an undertrial.

13. The applicant in the present case is in custody for more than six years. Looking at the order-sheets produced during the course of hearing, it is apparent that the prime witnesses have not been produced on several dates. The matter has been dragging for more than six years. Even at this stage, the trial is likely to take a long period before reaching any finality.

14. At this stage, the evidence against the applicant is the disclosure statement made by the co-accused and the alleged recovery of two earrings and two rings recovered at the instance of applicant. It is claimed that the two earrings and two rings recovered from the appli