Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3035 (ALL)

Anil Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-09-23

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. This is second bail application. The Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 11066 of 2012 has been rejected by this court on 18.09.2013 by Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J. 4. Submission of counsel is that since the rejection of the bail by another Bench on 18.09.2013, two years have elapsed? but not even a single witness has been examined in court so far. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing behind the bars since 30.12.2011 and almost four years he has already spent in jail. It is further pointed out that while rejecting the bail application of the applicant also, this court had observed that it was 'at that stage' that the court did not find it to be a fit case for bail. The submission is that ordinarily apart from the merits of the case, the period of detention of an accused also remains a relevant consideration to release or for refusing to release the accused on bail. As is reflected by the observation of court, it appears that the detention of the applicant was not considered to be so long that applicant could have been released on bail on that basis at that stage. The submission is that though it is true that after rejection of bail earlier on the merits of the case there is not much scope to revisit the facts of the case but it is not an irrelevant fact that four years have already been spent by the accused languishing in jail and the trial has not yet begun. Ordersheets of the court have also been annexed along with supplementary affidavit which has been taken on record and it is apparent from the perusal of the same that the trial has not at all made any progress so far. Counsel has also emphasized upon the fact that the accused has not been responsible for delaying the trial at all in any manner whatsoever. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Counsel has also emphasized upon the fact that the accused has not been responsible for delaying the trial at all in any manner whatsoever. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an over all view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent from the perusal of the earlier rejection order that the bail was refused 'at that stage' and this expression very much finds its place in the order itself. This is also apparent that the accused is not responsible for delaying the trial and period of four years has elapsed. The trial can not be procrastinated for an unlimited period of time and the prosecution can not be allowed to act as an engine of oppression. The accused ought to be prosecuted and not presecuted. If even after keeping the accused for four years in jail, the prosecution has not produced even a single witness it has to bear the brunt of blame itself. Though it is true that the long period of detention can not entitle the accused of all cases to bail regardless of the merit of their case and the long period of incarceration can not universally be applied in a streight-Jacket manner as a cut & dried formulla for bail without keeping in perspective the gravity of offence and the nature of evidence in its support, but this case does not appear to fall in the category of such exceptions. Looking to the overall nature of facts & circumstances of the case, the long period of detention and the fact that the trial has not made any progress at all, and in fact has not even begun, I feel that accused has made out a case of bail. 7. Let the applicant Anil Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 342 of 2011, u/s 376(2G), 506, 341 IPC and section 3(1)12 SC/ST Act, P.S.-Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned Police Station. In case of any default, the In-charge, Police Station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.