Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Singh @ Monu (Second Bail ... vs State Of U.P. on 28 June, 2021
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- BAIL No. - 693 of 2020 Applicant :- Shailesh Singh @ Monu (Second Bail Application) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,R.B.S. Rathaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Om Singh,Seema Gupta Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application, the first having been rejected vide order date 30.5.2019 passed in Bail No.935 of 2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the first bail application, the trial court was directed to conclude trial within six months from the date of the order, however, more than two years have passed, the trial is still pending.
From perusal of the status report submitted by the trial Court, it appears that only the chief examination of P.W.1 has been conducted and thereafter several dates were fixed, however, the witness could not be examined due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Applicant's counsel submits that from the applicant's side, an F.I.R. was also lodged against the informant side. The co-accused Kuldeep Singh has been badly injured as a result of assault by the complainant's side. Kuldeep was brought to CHC, Sangipur and thereafter was referred to District Hospital. Looking to the seriousness of the head injury, he was referred to KGMU, Lucknow. He was diagnosed as fracture in head bone. He was also treated in Sanjai Gandhi Hospital, Amethi A copy of the cross FIR No.103 dated 5.62018 lodged by the wife of Kuldeep Singh and well as injury report have been annexed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the bail application.
It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.9.2018. Injuries suffered by the accused side have not been explained by the prosecution which makes the prosecution case doubtful. The prosecution has not come out with clean hands and true and correct version of the incident have not been stated in the F.I.R..
Learned counsel relied on (1976)4 SCC 394 Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar.
The applicant has explained the criminal history of solitary case in para 13 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 26.9.2018.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the trial could not be concluded even after the specific order passed by this Court within the time stipulated by this court, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Shailesh Singh alias Monu, involved in Case Crime No.102/2018 under sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Uday Pur, district Pratapgarh 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021 kkb/