# Vikas Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-08
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1311 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikas-singh-v-state-of-u-p-51344
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A.

Bail; Delay in Trial--First bail application
rejected- in judicial custody for more than six
years- More than one year has passed since the
first bail application was rejected- no possibility
to conclude the trial shortly-these reasons may
be considered as fresh grounds to allow
Sectionond bail application. Bail Application
allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharashtra:
(2020)
10
SCC
77.
However, the question of entertainablity of
a
miscellaneous
application
seeking
modification of an order after final decision
of the case, was not involved in that case
and, therefore, that case is of no relevance
for decision of this issue.

34. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I find that the miscellaneous
application for deletion of a condition after
final decision of the Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1224 of 2023, is not
maintainable
and
the
application
is
accordingly dismissed as such.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1312
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1311 of 2024

Vikas Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Trilok Nath Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Bail; Delay in Trial--First bail application
rejected- in judicial custody for more than six
years- More than one year has passed since the
first bail application was rejected- no possibility
to conclude the trial shortly-these reasons may
be considered as fresh grounds to allow
Sectionond bail application. Bail Application
allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. U.O.I.Vs K.A. Najeeb,AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 712

2. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs The Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation- Criminal Appeal No.
693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of
2020)

3. Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba Vs St. of Mah.,
(2018) 12 SCC 505

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri T.N. Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicant that this is
second bail application and the applicant is
in jail since 15.1.2018 in Case Crime No.
6/2018
u/s
302,
201/34
IPC,
P.S.
Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar. It
has been submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case as he
has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. The first bail application bearing
Bail Application No. 4266 of 2022 has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated
25.1.2023, which reads as under :

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

As per learned counsel for the
applicant, the present applicant (Vikas
Singh S/O Lakhan Singh Alias Laxman
Singh)
is
languishing
in
jail
since
15.01.2018 in Case Crime No.06 of 2018,
under Sections 302/201/ 34 I.P.C., Police
Station-Jahangirganj,
District-Ambedkar
Nagar.

After arguing the matter at some
length, learned counsel for the applicant
2 All. Vikas Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1313
has requested that the present bail
application may be disposed of at this stage
as he shall not address the Court on merits
of the bail application but the direction may
be issued to the learned trial court to
conduct and conclude the trial with
expedition.

Learned Additional Government
Advocate has no objection if the direction
for conclusion of trial is issued by this
Court.

Therefore, without entering into
merits of the issue, the present bail
application is rejected at this stage.

However, learned trial court is
directed to conduct and conclude the trial,
strictly in accordance with law, with
expedition preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. If any of the
witnesses does not co-operate in the trial
proceedings properly, the learned trial
court may take appropriate coercive steps
against him/her/them. It is further directed
that the learned trial court shall fix short
dates and if possible the trial in question
may run on day-to-day basis in terms of
provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. which
provides that the proceedings of trial court
may run on day-to-day basis.

I am unable to comprehend that
when there is specific provision in the
Cr.P.C. to conduct the trial on day-to-day
basis in the serious offence, as to why such
exercise is not carried out by the learned
trial court.

However, it is made clear that if
the trial in question is not concluded within
the aforesaid stipulated time, the liberty is
given to the applicant to file second bail
application and in such bail application the
point of non conducting the trial within
stipulated time may be considered as a
fresh ground."

4. In the aforesaid bail order the detail of
case crime number etc. has been indicated
and it has also been indicated with the
present applicant is in jail since 15.1.2018,
therefore, the petitioner is in judicial
custody for more than six years.

5. While arguing the first bail
application the learned counsel for the
applicant had not addressed the merits of
the case and had requested that the
direction may be issued to expedite the
trial. This Court vide order dated 25.1.2023
has directed to conclude the trial within a
period of six months by observing that
there is specific provision in Code of
Criminal Procedure to conduct the trial on
day to day basis in the heinous cases,
therefore, the trial may be conducted
invoking such provisions of law.

6. More than one year period has
passed w.e.f. the date when the first bail
application was rejected on 25.1.2023 but
the trial in question has not been
concluded. As per para 15 of the bail
application the trial has been fixed for
examination of the defense evidence.
Further in para 26 of the bail application it
has been categorically indicated that the
present applicant has got no criminal
history of any kind whatsoever except the
present case and he has not been convicted
in any offence. Therefore, learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
prayed
that
considering the period of long incarceration
of the applicant and also the fact that
despite the specific direction issued by this
Court to conclude the trial within stipulated
time, such trial has not been concluded
within time stipulated, he may be granted
bail.

7. The learned counsel for the
applicant has given an undertaking on
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
behalf of applicant that the applicant shall
not misuse the liberty of bail and shall
cooperate with the trial proceedings and
shall abide by all terms and conditions of
bail, if granted.

8. Learned A.G.A. has however, tried
to convince the Court to the effect that by
filing second bail application no fresh
ground has been taken but being confronted
as to whether the aforesaid two grounds
which have been taken by the petitioner i.e.
the trial has not been concluded within time
so stipulated and the period of incarceration
i.e. long incarceration of more than six
years may not be considered as fresh
grounds, the learned AGA could not
dispute.

9. The main points raised by Sri Yadav
are that since there is no possibility to conclude
the trial in near future, therefore, the period of
long incarceration of the present applicant in jail
i.e. more than six years may be considered in
view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union
of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021
Supreme Court 712 and 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). More particularly, despite the
direction issued by this Court on 25.1.2023 to
conclude the trial within six months but trial has
not been concluded.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.

11. The Apex Court in re: Union of India
vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been
held as under :

"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 significant period of time,
Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge
them on bail."

12. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs.
The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
(supra) the Apex Court has held 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."

13. Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba
v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505,
wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material
witnesses have been examined, the bail
application of the accused may be considered.

14. In the present case, the trial has
not been concluded within the time so
2 All. Jitendra Vs. State of U.P.
1315
stipulated by this Court while rejecting the
first bail of the present applicant. All
prosecution witnesses have been examined.
The petitioner is in judicial custody for
more than 6 years and there is no
possibility to conclude the trial shortly.
Hence, all the aforesaid reasons may be
considered as fresh grounds to allow
second bail application in view of the
dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India
vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram
Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau
of Investigation (supra) and Gokarakonda
Naga Saibaba (supra). So, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail in this case.

15. Therefore, without entering into
the merits of the case, the present bail
application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant Vikas Singh,
involved in aforesaid case crime 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 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 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.

(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 permission of the Court
concerned.

[Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts and research done by Mr. Piyush
Tripathi, Research Associate and Mr.
Vaibhav Tyagi, Law Intern, attached with
me, in finding out the relevant case laws,
applicable in the present case.]
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1315
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9126 of 2023

Jitendra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent