Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar Alias Deepak Verma vs State Of U.P. on 22 March, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25248 of 2022 Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Alias Deepak Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Applicant- Deepak Kumar Alias Deepak Verma has approached this Court for bail in Case Crime No. 0135 of 2020 under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Kailia, District- Jalaun (Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2020).
This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2021.
Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequently, statement of victim has been recorded as PW-1, however, she has not supported case of prosecution and has been declared hostile; even in her examination-in-chief, she has not mentioned that any physical relationship was made and as such nature of evidence available before learned trial Court at this stage may not lead to conviction of applicant; therefore, applicant, who is in jail since 03.10.2020 may be released on bail during trial.
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA appearing for State submits that any comment on testimony of applicant will adversely affect the trial and it is upon the trial Court to consider effect of evidence of victim even though she has been declared hostile, therefore, applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY (A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.
(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.
(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.
(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.
(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559) Considering above submissions and taking note that applicant is in jail since 03.10.2020 as well as nature of evidence of victim who has been declared hostile and without making any other comment on evidence of victim, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let the applicant- Deepak Kumar Alias Deepak Verma 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Nirmal Sinha