Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14551 of 2021 Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Irfan seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 321 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, registered at P.S. Sikandara, District Bulandshahr.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is a case of jumping of bail. It is argued that the bail was granted to the applicant by the court below vide order dated 04.10.2011 after which he was appearing before the trial court but on 13.07.2017 due to his non appearance, non bailable warrants were issued against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant had met with an accident and was under treatment initially at Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi and then at Abdullah Hospital, Bulandshahr due to which he was unable to attend the trial, para 11 and 12 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. It is further argued that the applicant challenged the said N.B.W before this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. numbered as Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8700 of 2020 (Irfan Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2020 wherein protection was given to the applicant against any coercive action for the period of two weeks or till his appearance before the court below and a direction was issued to the applicant to appear within the said period with a further direction to the court below to decide the bail application in view of judgments as mentioned in the said order. It is argued that subsequently due to lock down, the applicant did not approach and appear before the court below and it was only on 16.01.2021 that he was arrested and since when he is in jail. It is further argued that the criminal history of the applicant has been reported of seven cases including the present case which have been disclosed and explained in para 3-4 of the supplementary affidavit in which in three cases the applicant is not involved and in the other four cases he has been falsely implicated including the present case. It is argued that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be considered and he may be directed to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.01.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the trial in the present case is pending due to non appearance of the applicant for a good period of three years. It is further argued that even the applicant has disobeyed the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by this Court in 482 Cr.P.C. petition. It is further argued that even after the said order the applicant did not surrender before the court below but was only arrested after nine months. It is argued that as such the applicant has a clear intention of not cooperating with the trial and as such the prayer for bail be rejected.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records, it is apparent that the non appearance of the applicant appears to be an act with an intention to delay the trial which is evident from the fact that even he has failed to honour the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by this Court. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Looking to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)