Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chandra Shukla vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 2022
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17940 of 2022 Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Office report has been filed and perused. The report sent by the learned trial court regarding cause for delay is not satisfactory. The applicant cannot be penalised any further for interminal delays in the judicial system.
By means of this 4th bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2009 at Police Station-Soraon, District-Allahabad under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant did not have any intent to kill the deceased. The incident arose out of an argument between the parities which suddenly turned violent. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant is in jail since 12.07.2009. The trial has not concluded till date. The applicant filed the last bail application before this Court in the year 2011 and rejected in 2013. Thereafter he did not have access to legal aid to approach this Court. Inordinate delay in the trial and lack of timely legal aid has lead to indefinite incarceration of the applicant. This has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court by order dated 04.07.2022 directed the learned trial court, Allahabad to send a report regarding the cause for delay and status of the trial. The report sent by the learned trial Court, Allahabad does not indicate that the applicant was in any manner responsible for the delay.
The applicant has a fundamental right to speedy justice. Further, incarceration of the applicant in the facts of this case will lead violation of the right to speedy trial.
There are good authorities of constitutional courts which have held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Thirteen years of incarceration without conclusion of the trial in the facts of this case has violated this right of the applicant. The trial in its comments has sought to assure the Court that the trial be concluded expeditiously. In view of the past conduct of the trial, this Court cannot take such assurance on its face value.
Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Lalit Prakash, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. They, however, do not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
This Court had earlier granted interim bail in this bail application. For the reasons stated in the interim bail application as well as preceding narrative the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail.
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- Mahesh Chandra Shukla 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 subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Pravin