Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19209 of 2017 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This is the third bail application moved on behalf of applicant. The first and second bail applications have been rejected by this court on 16.12.2015 and 07.12.2016 respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Emphasis has been made by the counsel for the applicant on that fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.09.2014 but no evidence in the case has been produced so far. Counsel has tried to explain the circumstances under which the applicant could not appear in the court. Further submission is that after coming to know about the warrants issued against the applicant he himself had surrendered in the court and submit to the jurisdiction of the court and it is not a case where the police arrested the accused- applicant during the course of his absconding. According to counsel, there was gross misunderstanding that has resulted in the absence of the applicant but much emphasis has been made by the counsel that this incident relates to the year 2003 and even after a lapse of 15 years the trial is going on without any progress in the same at all. Submission is that though because of the absence of the applicant, the trial was held up for some time but since the surrender of the applicant in the court about three and half years have rolled by and not an iota of evidence could be produced on behalf of prosecution. Contention is that in such circumstances, the applicant should not be detained for an indefinite period of time awaiting for prosecution evidence. Submission is that the recent delay in producing the evidence has at all not been contributed by the applicant. It was also undertaken by the counsel that henceforth no default shall occur on behalf of applicant and the applicant is prepared to furnish reliable sureties in this regard. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2014 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Mishra, involved in S.T. No.1089 of 2004 (State vs. Sunil Kumar Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No.469 of 2003, u/s 413 I.P.C., P.S.-Govind Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each of his family members or close relatives in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. If no family member or close relative is available to become surety, the court concerned shall be at liberty to seek bank guarantee of such reasonable amount, as may be determined under the facts of the case. In addition, the release of applicant on bail shall be subjected to following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned Police Station. In case of any default, the In- charge, Police Station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
The court concerned is also directed to make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 M. Kumar