Allahabad High Court
Kamaljeet Singh @ Kawaljeet Singh vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108135 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46110 of 2020 Applicant :- Kamaljeet Singh @ Kawaljeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Shukla,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Mayank Pratap Singh,Radhey Shyam Shukla,Rishi Bhushan Jauhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Awtar Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 495 of 2013, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, Police Station Khutar, District Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a cross version of the prosecution story lodged as Case Crime No.559 of 2015. It was later changed into a Complaint Case No. 1784 of 2020. Vide order dated 20.09.2021 of the court concerned the said case was found to be cross case of the present case and the case was committed to session. It is submitted that the accused person Gulab Singh challenged the summoning order in a Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22016 of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 and it was ordered that the applicant may file a discharge application. It is also submitted that as per the case of Nathi Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1990 (supp) SCC 145 cross cases are to be decided and the judgment are to be pronounced together. It is submitted that in the present scenario since the trial of the present applicant has already been concluded and all the witnesses of prosecution and defence evidence have been recorded but in the cross case the charge has not been framed and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in near future. It is submitted that in this case the father of the applicant namely Sulakkhan and mother Smt. Paramjeet Kaur now who have died, sustained dangerous injuries and his injuries was examined in police custody but the FIR was not registered. It is further submitted that as of now applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2013. It is submitted that trial of the present applicant has been almost concluded but since in the cross case the accused persons did not appear therefore, their case could not be committed to the Court of Session. It is also submitted that co-accused Baljeet Singh has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 and the case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused. It is submitted that applicant has no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Kamaljeet Singh @ Kawaljeet Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Mohit