Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1488 of 2015 Appellant :- Harendra Pratap Singh @ Hari Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilendra Yadav,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Sri V.K. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State on the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2017.
In the present case bail is being sought in appeal against the order of conviction.
We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting the appellant.
The second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground that the appellant is in jail since 29.1.2006. From the order sheet it appears that the lower court record has not yet been received. Further contention is there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. Reliance has also been placed in a reasoned judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Madan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2018, arising out of Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 1319 of 2018. The said order passed by Their Lordship's is being quoted herein below:-
"1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Aggrieved by the refusal of the High court to suspend the sentence against the accused appellant this appeal has been filed.
4. The accused who has been convicted under Section 30/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life has undergone actual custody for a period of over seven years. The hearing of the appeal pending before the High Court is likely to take some time unless specifically expedited. We are not inclined to pass any such order.
5. Taking into account the period of custody suffered and the time within which the appeal is likely to be disposed of we are of the view that the accused appellant should be released on bail. We order accordingly. Consequently, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapur, M.P. in connection with Sessions Trial No.200/2010.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapur, M.P. is free to impose appropriate condition(s) as he deems fit.
7. Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the present appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
Reference has also been made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein under similar circumstances solely on the ground of detention (10 years), the Apex Court has passed the following order on 11.3.2019 in SLP (Crl.) No.8279 of 2018 Kewal Chandra Lodh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which reads herein as under:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice we consider it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly."
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, considering the long period of incarceration of the applicant/ appellant as an under- trial, which is more than thirteen years by now, but without expressing any opinion on merits, at this stage, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-appellant Harendra Pratap Singh @ Hari Singh convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment in S. T. No. 20 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.33 of 2006, under Sections 393, 302/34 IPC PS Uttar District Firozabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the concerned court to be kept on record.
The fine as imposed by the trial court concerned shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month from the date of his release. In case the fine as directed is not deposited within the time as specified above, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the hearing of the appeal is expedited under Chapter-VIII Rule 33A of the Rules of Court.
Summon the lower court record.
After receipt of the lower court record, office is directed to prepare the paper book within two months and thereafter appeal be listed for hearing before appropriate Bench.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 SP