Allahabad High Court
Shahzad vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:38745 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25928 of 2023 Applicant :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.725 of 2022 at Police Station-Gajraula, District-Amroha/J.P. Nagar under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.05.2023.
The following arguments made by Shri Anmol Kumar Dubey, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant was not named in the FIR.
2. The body of the deceased was found in the office of a company running in the name and style of Check mate.
3. The applicant was nominated in the statement of a police informer whose whose identity is not revealed and whose credentials are uncertain. The said nomination is unreliable and made at the behest of police authorities to frame the applicant and burnish their credentials. No reliance can be placed on the said statement.
4. One piece of brick, a small handbag, two metal rings of white colour and one mobile phone was planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police investigators without diligent investigations.
5. There is no independent witness to the recovery.
6. The recovered article cannot be connected with the offence.
7. No forensic science laboratory report depicting the presence of human bloodstains on the brick has been produced by the prosecution.
8. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
9. 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 her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Shahzad 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:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial.
Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as contemplated under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.
The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.
The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.
The Superintendent of Police, Amroha/J.P. Nagar shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.
In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Superintendent of Police, Amroha/J.P. Nagar shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Superintendent of Police, Amroha/J.P. Nagar shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.
The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.
The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) so that the pace of the trial does not suffer.
It is further directed that in case the applicant or any accused does not cooperate in the trial or adopt dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.
The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. .(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023) and was decided by the judgements dated 24.08.2023 & 20.12.2023 respectively. This Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses.
The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the responsible officials for implementing the said judgments.
In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard.
The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law.
The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person.
The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.
A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Amroha/J.P. Nagar as well as Superintendent of Police, Amroha/J.P. Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance) by E-mail.
Order Date :- 4.3.2024 Vandit