JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The issue that arises for consideration in all connected matters is a recurring theme in the criminal law process in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is arising regularly in bail applications before this Court. The failure of the police to serve summons and execute coercive processes issued by the court and its consequences on the fundamental rights of liberty of an accused and fair administration of right of bail arise in these cases directly have to be addressed squarely. The status reports sent by the learned trial courts reveal that the trials are being delayed as the police authorities did not serve summons and execute coercive measures in a timely manner to compel appearance of the witnesses on the appointed date in the trial. The status reports are made part of the records.

2. Right of bail arises from Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.] .

3. With coming of the Constitution and development of constitutional law, the statutory domain of bails transformed into constitutional jurisdiction.

4. The right to bail is derived from statute but cannot be removed from constitutional oversight.

5. Good authority has long entrenched the right of an accused to seek bail in the charter of fundamental rights assured by the Constitution of India.

6. Bail jurisprudence was firmly embedded in the constitutional regime of fundamental rights in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240. Casting an enduring proposition of law in eloquent speech, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. held:

“1. Bail or jail?” — at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage — belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the hunch of the Bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. As Chamber Judge in this summit court I have to deal with this uncanalised case-flow, ad hoc response to the docket being the flickering candle light. So it is desirable that the subject is disposed of on basic principle, not improvised brevity draped as discretion. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. To glamorize impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law”. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right.”

7. More recently the interplay of constitutional liberty assured under Article 21 and statutory right of bail of an undertrial prisoner was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 915 of 2023.

8. Engagement of fundamental rights in bail jurisprudence is a constant in constitutional law.

9. The Court while examining a bail application has to balance and reconcile diverse objectives, namely, the imperative of constitutional liberties of an accused, the necessity of bringing an offender to fair and speedy justice, and the mandate of upholding the law.

10. Parameters of bail are well settled by judicial precedents and practices achieve the aforesaid aims in full measure.

11. Some of the settled parameters of grant of bail include nature and gravity of the offences, and the likelihood of an accused having committed the offence. The possibility of the accused re-offe