Advocates:
['NARENDRA KUMAR', '', 'RABINDRA BAHADUR SINGH', 'G A']

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38692 of 2018

Applicant :- Pappu Urf Kuwar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar,Rabindra Bahadur

Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA

for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicant, Pappu Urf Kuwar, with a prayer to release him on bail in

S.T. No.811 of 2016, Case Crime No.466 of 2016, under

Sections 201, 302 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District-

Moradabad, during pendency of trial.

There is allegation against the applicant of causing murder and

disappearance of the dead body of the deceased. Subsequently, on

the basis of the evidence of last seen and allegedly planted

recovery of weapon applicant has been implicated in this case.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant

has been falsely implicated in this case. He is languishing in jail

since 06.5.2016. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be

concluded in near future.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot

be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any

indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again

indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to

delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of

India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712

has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below

as follows :-

"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."

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above,

larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra

Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.

5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6

times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under

trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail

on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following

conditions that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the

witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the

witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it

shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail

and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court o