SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Rameshwar Pandey - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal misc. Bail application No. 11785 of 2019
Decided On : 31-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Anil Kumar Tripathi

Point of Law: Grant of Bail - Period of incarceration of applicant almost seven years and there are total 15 prosecution witnesses out of them all fact witnesses have been examined and examination of other witnesses is almost complete.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 504 & 506 – Offence of Murder – Third Bail application – Whether bail can be granted - Applicant is in jail for almost seven years and the fact witnesses and other prosecution witnesses were not cooperating with the trial proceedings, resultant thereof the trial could not be concluded despite being committed on 7.8.2018 and the status report was provided by the District Judge does not indicate any fault on the part of the applicant, learned AGA has submitted that since the aforesaid situation being a matter of record, therefore, he has nothing to say (Para 14).

Finding of the Court:

pending the trial Court 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 defense 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 - There is no fault on the part of the present applicant in not concluding the trial at the earliest and the specific fault is attributable to the fact witness and other witnesses who remained absent when case was committed to the sessions, therefore, while considering bail application of the present applicant this fact may also be considered. However, Sri Tripathi has given undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

Result: Applicant is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This case was listed on 15.3.2022 and on that date this Court has passed the following order :

    "Heard Sri Anil K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

Sri Anil K. Tripathi has filed a questionnaire dated 12.2.2020 in the present case to apprise the Court that no prosecution witness has been examined, however, charges have been framed on 13.11.2018, the same is taken on record.

This is the third bail application. First and second bail applications have been rejected by Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J. on 22.2.2017 and 17.5.2018 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.7312 of 2015 and 7137 of 2017 respectively.

On being confronted on the point as to what is the fresh ground to consider the third bail application, Sri Anil K. Tripathi has submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 27.5.2015 in Case Crime No.840 of 2015, under Sections 302, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, considering the fundamental right of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he may be released on bail.

I have noted that vide order dated 17.5.2018, the Hon'ble Court has directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich to commit the case to the Court of Session immediately within a period of one month. It appears that after the aforesaid order, the case has been committed to the Court of Session, who has framed the charges on 13.11.2018.

List this case on 31.03.2022 to enable the District and Sessions Judge, Bahraich to provide the status report of the trial. Such status report should be exhaustive indicating therein about the relevant dates of the trial.

The Registry of this Court shall intimate this order to the District and Sessions Judge, Bahraich within three working days for compliance of the direction.

On the next date, after considering the status of the trial, the present bail application may be disposed of finally and learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA shall prepare the case on the point as to whether inordinate delay in concluding the trial may be considered as one of the fresh grounds to consider the bail application if two bail applications have already been rejected."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order the District Judge, Bahraich has provided a detailed and exhaustive status report dated 28.3.2022 relating to the trial proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that he is aware about the fact that he cannot take any ground in third bail application which was available with him at the time of first bail application or second bail application. Therefore, he has restrained himself to raise factual arguments and grounds of the bail except that the present applicant is in jail since 27.5.2015 in Case Crime No. 840 of 2015 u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ikauna, District Shrawasti. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R.

5. Sri Tripathi has submitted that he has also received instructions in respect of status of the trial and as per his information after the committal of the trial to the sessions on 7.8.2018 the fact witnesses remained absent till 28.10.2021 and the bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against them. He has further submitted that after the issuance of bailable warrants and Non-Bailable Warrants on several dates the fact witnesses namely, Bablu Pandey Raj Kumari and Kanhaiya Lal Pandey appeared before the learned trial court. Besides, one more witness Dharam Raj also appeared before the learned trial court.

6. So as to verify the aforesaid submission of Sri Tripathi, I perused the status report dated 28.3.2022 which clearly reveals that all the fact witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Bablu Pandey, P.W. 2 Ra

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top