SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2024

Posted on 03/05/2024 by MyNation Leave a comment

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Allahabad High Court

Sandeep vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2024

Author: Ajay Bhanot

Bench: Ajay Bhanot

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:36055

Court No. – 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 37797 of 2023

Applicant :- Sandeep

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of the applicant. The name of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

The matter cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the judgement rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18536 of 2020 (Maneesh Pathak v. State of U.P.). This Court also takes notice of some realities of criminal litigation in the State. Applicant whose counsel fail to turn up before the Court when the matter is taken up for hearing becomes a victim of undeserved want within the meaning of Section 12(e) of the Legal Services Authorities (‘LSA’) Act, 1987. The absence of the counsel has to be seen in light of various socio-economic realities. Many under trials are financially destitute. They are at times abandoned by their family members and often lack effective pairokars. Such persons are unable to foot the expenses for getting the matter listed on a regular basis. On occasions counsels for such applicants stop appearing when remuneration for their expenses is not borne by the prisoners.

In the wake of these circumstances the appropriate course for the courts are always to seek the opinion of the accused persons before appointing an amicus curiae. However, considering the length of imprisonment of the applicant this Court has decided to appoint an amicus curiae in the facts of this case.

Sri Yash Raj Verma (A/4-0209/2021) learned counsel is appointed as amicus curiae to represent the applicant and assist the Court.

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2020 at Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 05.06.2020.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 17.01.2023.

The following arguments made by Sri Yash Raj Verma, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness.

2. The trial is moving at a snail’s pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

3. Status report sent by the learned trial court records that as per the prosecution nineteen witnesses are proposed to be examined. However, only four witnesses have been examined till date. All material prosecutions witnesses have been examined. The status report also records that some of the prosecution witnesses are not cooperating in the trial proceedings and have not appeared despite coercive measures taken out against them.

4. Prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

5. Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant, without any evidence to implicate him in the offence. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

6. Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from framing an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence.

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held:

“Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard.”

Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for bail.

7. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

8. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Sandeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-