Allahabad High Court
Bala Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 25 January, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:12970 Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24935 of 2023 Applicant :- Bala Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naveen Kumar Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for informant 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, Bala Prasad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, under Sections 328, 302, 506, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kasya, District- Kushinagar during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the FIR that the applicantj and co-accused, Prem and Chabas, threw four toffees alongwith one rupee coin inside the house of the informant and after consuming the same four minor children died. Two days ago, the applicant and the other co-accused had threatened the informant of life on account of old enmity and, therefore, they have caused the alleged incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the bail application of co-accused, Prem Prasad, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26516/2023 which is quoted hereinbleow:-
"1. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Rashmi Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal and Sri Naveen Kumar Yadav, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Perm Prasad , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, under Sections- 328, 302, 506, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushinagar, pendency of trial.
3. There is allegation against the applicant and other co-accused that they threw toffees coated with poison which was picked up by the sweeper, Mukhiya Devi. Her niece and other children consumed the same and four minor children aged between 2-5 years died after consuming the same.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of the applicant on account of enmity.
5. Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has pointed out that during investigation, help of dog squad was taken and the sniffer dog went from the house of the informant to the house of the applicant where poisonous substance, one katari / talwar were recovered. The statement of Smt. Inirpali, was recorded by the investigating officer who informed that her daughter was married to the applicant about 10 years ago. She was beaten by the applicant and thereafter she left his house and nothing is known about her. She further alleged that the applicant was married earlier to another woman who had died. She stated that the applicant gives poison to the animals for killing them and thereafter eats their flesh. She informed that four children died in the same manner in November, 2019 in her house because of the applicant giving them some poison.
6. Learned A.G.A has also opposed the bail application of the applicant.
7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
9. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. "
Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the co-accused, Prem Prasad, the trial has proceeded before the trial court. Statement of P.W.-2 has been recorded wherein she has stated that there was dispute between daughter of her nanad, Meera, and co-accused, Prem Prasad. He lived with her for ten years and, thereafter, he deserted her. She also admitted that between Meera and his daughter a litigation was pending. It has only been stated that applicant and co-accused, Chabad, belonged to the family of co-accused, Prem Prasad, and she has no enmity with them. She has expressed apprehension that the accused persons may have thrown the poisonous toffees in her house. P.W.-1 has stated that his mother stated that neither he nor his mother saw the applicants throwing any toffee in their house. He has stated that his mother had informed that she saw accused persons going on the road. P.W.-3 has stated that there is litigation between the brother of the applicant, Upendra and Dandan. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicants except suspicion. He has no direct enmity with the informant and his family members. He has been implicated because of enmity of co-accused, Prem Prashad, and his brother, Upendra with the family members of the deceased children. The applicant belongs to poor strata of society and may be enlarged on bail. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 27.03.2022. 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, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; 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 on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Abhishek