Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hariom vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8279/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-05-2023
in CRMBA No.42571/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
HARIOM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(and I.R.
IA No.129216/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 22-09-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G.
Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner seeks enlargement on regular bail in Case Crime No.189/16, dated 24.06.2016, registered at Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC.
2. The complainant has alleged that his father – Panna Lal Sharma was attacked by the petitioner and five other co-accused Signature Not Verified with a knife. He suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot.
Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2023.09.22 15:44:16 IST Reason:3. It appears that after investigation, no chargesheet was filed against the petitioner. Taking note of statements of various persons, according to the Investigating Officer, the petitioner was 2 not present at the place of crime when the occurrence took place. He was, thus, found innocent by the Investigating Officer.
4. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner and the co-accused – Harish were ascribed the same role as per the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Co-accused Harish was granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 23.05.2017.
5. After examination of few witnesses, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved in which the petitioner and some other co-accused were summoned to face trial vide order dated 21.05.2019. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged that order before the High Court. He was, thereafter, arrested on 30.09.2019 and is in custody since then.
6. This is the third attempt by the petitioner to seek bail.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and carefully perused the material placed on record including the counter affidavit.
8. It is not in dispute that out of 21, only 2 witnesses have been examined so far. The High Court vide order dated 03.02.2020 had directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months. But that time line has not been adhered to. The petitioner has spent almost four years in custody.
9. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
10. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
11. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)