Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1824 of 2007

Appellant :- Tota Ram

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

In Re: Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.10 of

2022 filed on behalf of the appellant-Tota Ram

Present matter is listed under the heading "PENDING BAIL

APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL APPEALS 14 YEARS OR

MORE THAN 14 YEARS".

We have heard Shri N. Muhammad, learned counsel for the

applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for State on the bail

application.

Present bail application has been preferred for a direction to

release the appellant on bail in Sessions Trial No.994 of 1998

(State v. Tota Ram) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 1998

under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Jewar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in

jail since 23.2.2007 and by now, he has already undergone more

than 15 years of sentence. He has no criminal antecedent. It is

also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that first bail

application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 26.2.2008 for want of prosecution. It is

contended that on the fault of the counsel, the appellant should

not be made to suffer. It is further contended by learned

counsel for the appellant that inspite of his best efforts the

hearing of the appeal could not be ensured and as such this

Court may accord indulgence in the matter. There is no

likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. In support of

his contention he has relied upon an order of the Supreme Court

dated 14.5.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.

1319 of 2018 (Madan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh).

The said order of the supreme court reads as under:

"1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence against the accused

appellant this appeal has been filed.

4. The accused who has been convicted under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life has undergone actual custody for a period of over

seven years. The hearing of the appeal pending before the High Court is likely to take

some time unless specifically expedited. We are not inclined to pass any such order.

5. Taking into account the period of custody suffered and the time within which the

appeal is likely to be disposed of we are of the view that the accused appellant should be

released on bail. We order accordingly. Consequently, the appellant is ordered to be

released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner,

District Shajapur, M.P. in connection with Sessions Trial No. 200/2010.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapu, M.P. is free to impose

appropriate condition(s) as he deems fit.

7. Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the present appeal is

disposed of in the above terms."

Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance on

the order of the Supreme Court dated 01.10.2021 passed in

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5845/2021

(Pintu vs. State of U.P.). The said order of the supreme court

reads as under:

"Taking into consideration the fact the the petitioner is reported to be in jail for more

than 9 years and 9 months, his Criminal Appeal, pending adjudication before the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is not likely to be taken up for final disposal very soon,

which fact could not be controverted by learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the State, we are inclined to grant bail to him.

The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to such terms and

conditions which the concerned Trial Court shal