Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42602 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar Bajpai,Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anwar Hussain
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anwar Hussain for the complainant as well as Sri I.P. Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 258 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Palimukimpur, District- Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
For the purposes of evaluating the prayer for bail, the Court notes that in the present case, the applicant had been enlarged on bail by an order of the Court dated 30 August 2017. Subsequently, another F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 155 of 2018 came to be registered naming the applicant herein, in which it was alleged that the informants in the present case were attacked and intimidated yet again. This led to the cancellation of the original order of bail granted by the Court on 30 August 2017. Although, the applicant has been enlarged on bail in respect of Case Crime No. 155 of 2018, it is manifest that he is repeatedly abusing the liberty which has been accorded. In situations like the present, it becomes imperative for the Court to weigh in the balance the personal liberty of an individual and the larger societal interest of a fair trial. Where the Court comes to conclude that the individual is directly impeding a fair trial and indulging in acts which are likely to result in witnesses being unable to depose without fear, then those considerations must and do clearly outweigh the liberty that is claimed by an individual for a fair trial in respect of a crime which is alleged to have been perpetrated is paramount. The Court deems it apposite to recall the following observations as made by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State [ NCT of Delhi] (2018) 12 SCC 129:-
“30. We are conscious of the fact that the appellants are only undertrials and their liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck. Referring to Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] and other cases, in State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad [State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 678] , this Court held as under: (SCC p. 193, para 26) “26. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications of the accused persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice-delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice-delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a threat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses, etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer.”
(emphasis supplied) 31. After referring to various case laws and observing that in a criminal trial, witnesses must be able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully, in Rajballav Prasad case [State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178 : (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 678] , this Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused thereon. In para 24 of the judgment, it was held as under: (SCC pp. 192-93) “24. As indicated by us in the beginning, prime consideration before us is to protect the fair trial and ensure that justice is done. This may happen only if the witnesses are able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully and this Court is convinced that in the present case, that can be ensured only if the respondent is not enlarged on bail. This importance of fair trial was emphasised in Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra [Panchanan Mishra v.
Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 660] while setting aside the order of the High Court granting bail in the following terms: (SCC pp. 147-48, para 13) ‘13. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side. The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime and if there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation.’”
Bearing those principles in mind, the Court finds no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The Bail Application is consequently rejected .
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)