Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 873 of 2013
Appellant :- Manoj Katiyar & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Narain Singh,M.N. Singh,Monika Arya
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Yogesh Agrawal
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Order on IIrd bail Application
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of appellant Manoj Katiya in ST No.531/2009 arising out of case crime no.314/2009 u/s 498A, 302, 34 IPC PS Bhognipur District Kanpur Dehat. The first bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 26.10.2015.
Heard Sri R.L. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Yogesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Patanjali Misra, learned AGA for the State.
The instant second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground of long incarceration of the appellant in jail which is about 8 years as the appellant is in jail since 02.08.2009; that the daughter of the deceased who was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given a different story whereas before the court concerned she has made a specific allegation against the husband as well as grandfather and the concerned court has clearly observed that the statement of the girl made before the court is duly corroborated by the testimony of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the court concerned is consistent and that mere long incarceration in jail will not make out a case for grant of indulgence in favour of such person.
There is good authority to held that mere long detention in jail does not entitle a convict on bail pending appeal. It has been held to this effect in Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra and others, 2002 (9) SCC 364, Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) 1067 and Girand Singh vs. State of U.P., 2010 (69) ACC 39 and also by us in Criminal Appeal No. 4599 of 2014, Chandra Bhan Yadav @ Baba Yadav vs. State of U.P. (decided on 27.10.2017).
Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav vs. CBI through its Director reported in 2007 (1) SCC 70 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"..........None of the decisions cited can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a long period of incarceration by itself would entitle him to be enlarged on bail.
"..........While it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.
Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan reported in 2004(7) SCC 528.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for bail. The application for bail is hereby rejected, at this stage.
However, Sri R.L. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant has informed the Court that the appellant who is the husband of the deceased is suffering from mouth cancer and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon annexure nos. 4 and 5 to the second bail application.
Thus, in view of the above, learned A.G.A. is directed to seek instructions with regard to the ailment of the appellant and with regard to the status of the ailment and in this regard it is directed to the concerned Superintendent of Jail to take appropriate steps within a week from today to get the appellant examined by the jail doctors and thereafter will submit a report before this Court by the next date of listing.
List this case on 24.10.2018.
However, it is being made clear that even though the second bail application of the appellant is being rejected but release of the appellant on the ground of his ailment will be considered on the next date fixed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Anand