# Anokhi Lal Second Bail v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6869 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anokhi-lal-second-bail-v-state-of-u-p-48417
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A.

A. Bail - Second Bail - The grounds
subsequent to the rejection of the first bail
application has come up which was considered
by the court as fresh ground for considering
second bail application. (Para 25)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Anokhi Lal Second Bail Vs. State of U.P.
135

(iii) 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 fail 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.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of the
Court.

28. Before parting with, it is expected
that the trial shall be concluded with
expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Further, the learned trial court may take all
coercive measures as per law if either of
the parties do not co-operate in the trial
properly.
----------

(2022)04ILR A135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6869 of 2019

Anokhi Lal Second Bail ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Dinesh Chandra Tewari, Arun Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Bail - Second Bail - The grounds
subsequent to the rejection of the first bail
application has come up which was considered
by the court as fresh ground for considering
second bail application. (Para 25)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. U.O.I. Vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 712 (followed)

2. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation Criminal Appeal No. 693
of 2021 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
and
Sri
Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. This is the second bail application
as the first bail application bearing Bail
Case No.7160 of 2018 (Anokhi Lal vs.
State of U.P.) has been rejected by Hon'ble
Anant Kumar, J. (since retired) on
23.04.2019.

3. While rejecting the first bail
application, the Hon'ble Court was pleased
to observe as under:-

"However, at this stage, learned
counsel for the applicant states that a
direction may be given to the trial court for
expeditious
disposal
of
the
trial.
Accordingly, trial court is directed to
expedite the trial and make an endeavour
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to conclude the trial, within a period of five
months."

4. Sri Sinha has submitted that despite
the specific direction of this Court vide
order dated 23.04.2019 to conclude the trial
within a period of five months, about three
years
period
have
passed
but
the
examination of PW-2 has not been
concluded inasmuch as such prosecution
witness is a fact witness, who is not cooperating with the trial proceedings.

5. Sri Sinha has filed certified copy of
orders of trial court for the last one year,
the same are taken on record. Those
certified copies shall be kept properly with
this paper-book.

6. Sri Sinha has submitted that the
present applicant is languishing in jail since
15.04.2018 in Case Crime No.36 of 2018,
under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station-Khargupur, District-Gonda.
He has further submitted that in the
impugned First Information Report (in
short F.I.R.), the entire family of the inlaws of the victim has been implicated. The
present applicant is not a direct family
member of the in-laws of the victim as he is
a cousin brother of husband of the victim
and such fact has been shown in the
pleadings as well as in the family register
which has been annexed in the bail
application.

7. Sri Sinha has further submitted that
in the dying declaration, the allegation has
been levelled against the mother-in-law
(Smt. Munni Devi) and the present
applicant. However, as per statement of the
family members of the victim the main
allegation has been levelled against the
mother-in-law (Smt. Munni Devi).

8. As per the prosecution story, the
victim had been brought to the hospital by
her husband (Vinay Kumar Awasthi), and
the victim died in the hospital. As per the
family members of the victim, all the
family members including the husband of
the victim were involved.

9. Attention has been drawn by
learned counsel for the applicant towards
Annexure No.5 of the bail application,
which is a bail order of mother-in-law
(Smt. Munni Devi) dated 05.07.2019
passed by this Court in Bail Case No.2035
of 2019 (Smt. Munni Devi vs. State of
U.P.) whereby this Court granted bail to the
mother-in-law (Smt. Munni Devi).

10. Further attention has been drawn
by learned counsel for the applicant
towards Annexure No.6 of the bail
application, which is a bail order of the
husband of the victim dated 20.02.2019
passed by this Court in Bail Case No.6236
of 2018 (Vinay Kumar Awasthi vs. State of
U.P.).

11. Sri Sinha has submitted that if the
allegations of the family members of the
victim are considered on its face value,
then all the family members were involved
but the mother-in-law (Smt. Munni Devi)
and the husband (Vinay Kumar Awasthi)
have been granted bail. Further, if dying
declaration is considered on its face value,
then despite having similar allegations the
mother-in-law (Smt. Munni Devi) has been
granted bail. Besides in various statements
of family members of the victim the main
culprit was the mother-in-law (Smt. Munni
Devi).

12. Sri Sinha has submitted that
however all the aforesaid arguments were
available at the time of rejection of first
4 All. Anokhi Lal Second Bail Vs. State of U.P.
137
bail application of the present applicant but
since the mother-in-law (Smt. Munni Devi)
has been granted bail subsequent to the
rejection of the bail application of the
present applicant, therefore, this may be
considered as fresh ground.

13. Sri Sinha has further drawn
attention
of
this
Court
towards
supplementary affidavit filed on 12.07.2021
showing Annexure No.SA-3, which is a
statement of PW-2 dated 04.04.2019 to
show that despite the specific direction
being issued by this Court on 23.04.2019 to
conclude the trial within a period of five
months, there is no progress in the trial. On
last date of hearing of the present bail
application on 24.03.2022 Sri Sinha prayed
sometime to show the current status of trial,
therefore, he was granted time. Today, he
has provided the certified copy of the
orders of the trial court for the last one year
to show the progress of trial.

14. As per the certified copies of
orders of the trial court, PW-2 is absent
since 03.04.2021 and on 03.04.2021 a
bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- has been
issued against him for his appearance. The
latest order dated 23.03.2022 provides that
for evidence/ examination of PW-2 the next
date has been fixed for 07.04.2022. The
perusal thereof clearly reveals that the
examination of PW-2 could not be
completed since April, 2019.

15. Sri Sinha has shown the chargesheet which indicates that there are 19
prosecution
witnesses.
Presently,
the
examination of PW-2 has not been
completed.

16. Therefore, Sri Sinha, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that
despite the specific direction of this Court
vide order dated 23.04.2019 to conclude
the trial within a period of five months,
there is no possibility to conclude the trial
in near future inasmuch as out of 19
prosecution witnesses even examination of
PW-2 has not been concluded. Therefore,
this ground may be considered as a fresh
ground to consider the second bail
application. Besides, after rejection of first
bail application of the present applicant on
23.04.2019 the main accused (Smt. Munni
Devi) i.e. mother-in-law of the victim has
been granted bail on 05.07.2019, therefore,
this may also be considered as a fresh
ground.

17. Sri Sinha has placed reliance upon
the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712.
Para 16 of the judgment is being
reproduced herein below:-

"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
Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union
of India, 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, 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
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
significant period of time, Courts would
ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on
bail."

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) has
observed as under :

"On consideration of the matter,
we are of the view that pending the trial we
cannot keep a person in custody for an
indefinite period of time and taking into
consideration the period of custody and
that the other accused are yet to lead
defence evidence while the appellant has
already stated he does not propose to lead
any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail
to the appellant on terms and conditions to
the satisfaction of the trial court."

19. In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that if there is no
possibility to conclude the trial in near
future and the accused applicant is in jail
for a substantial long period then a period
of incarceration may be considered as a
fresh ground.

20. Sri Sinha has submitted that since
the charge-sheet has already been filed in
this case and the present applicant is cooperating with the trial proceedings and if
there is any lapse in not concluding the
examination of PW-2 it is no fault on the
part of the present applicant but on the part
of the prosecution, therefore, he may be
released on bail.

21. Learned counsel for the applicant
has undertaken on behalf of the present
applicant that the applicant shall not misuse
the liberty of bail, if so granted by this
Court and shall abide by all terms and
conditions of the bail order and shall
cooperate with the trial proceedings.

22. On the other hand, learned
Additional
Government Advocate
has
opposed the prayer for bail by submitting
that since the specific allegations has been
levelled against the present applicant by the
victim
herself,
therefore,
his
bail
application may be rejected.

23. However, on being confronted on
the fact that on the basis of statement of
family members of the victim as well as of
the victim the allegations have been
levelled against the mother-in-law (Smt.
Munni Devi) who has been granted bail and
the family members of the victim have also
levelled allegations against the husband,
who has also been granted bail, the learned
Additional
Government Advocate
has
submitted that those orders being a matter
of record, therefore, he has nothing to say.

24. Having considered the fact that
despite the specific direction being issued
by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2019
to conclude the trial within a period of five
months but about three years period have
passed and the progress of trial is the same
as it was in the month of April, 2019 when
the first bail application was rejected. As a
matter of fact, there is no progress of trial
as such. The PW-2 is not co-operating with
the trial and has absconded for quite
sometime. The period of incarceration of
the
present
applicant
in
jail
since
15.04.2018 is also worth considering at this
stage when there is no possibility to
conclude the trial in near future inasmuch
as out of 19 PWs the examination of PW-2
is going on. Besides, all the family
members of the victim including the victim
herself have levelled specific allegation of
4 All. Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail Vs. State of U.P.
139
torture etc. to the mother-in-law (Smt.
Munni Devi), who has been granted bail
subsequent to the rejection of the first bail
application of the present applicant. Hence,
these grounds may be considered as fresh
ground to consider the second bail
application.

25.

Therefore,
in
the
given
circumstances and considering the dictum
of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: K.A. Najeeb
(supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra),
the aforesaid grounds are considered as
fresh
to
consider
the
second
bail
application, therefore, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, the
instant second bail application of the
present applicant is allowed.

26. Let applicant -Anokhi Lal, be
released on bail in aforesaid case crime
number on his furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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 fail 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.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of the
Court.

27. Before parting with it is expected
that the trial shall be concluded with
expedition. Further, the learned trial court
may take all coercive measures as per law
if either of the parties do not co-operate in
the trial properly. The learned trial court
shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is
concluded at the earliest.
----------
(2022)04ILR A139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11785 of
2019

Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anil Kumar Tripathi