Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Anirudh Yadav And Another v. State Of U.p

Anirudh Yadav And Another v. State Of U.p

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7855 of 2023 | 20-02-2023

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Anirudh and Jai Prakash with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2022, under Sections 304 IPC, Police Station Sector 24 Noida, District- Gautambudh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

3. There is allegation against the applicants that they are owners of a Spa Centre wherein a fire took place, as a result of which a person died. It is alleged that they did not not taken safety precautions and had not installed safety implements which resulted in fire and death of one person.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of an accident. They are not real owners of Spa Centre and they are only labourers. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal history to his credit and are languishing in jail since 10.08.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Advocate List

  • Alok Rai,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal

  • G.A.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Siddharth
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/1238
Head Note

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437, 439 and 436 — Bail — Conditions of bail — Spa Centre wherein a fire took place, as a result of which a person died — Allegation against the applicants that they are owners of the Spa Centre — Applicants falsely implicated in the case — They are only labourers — They have no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail since 10.08.2022 — Trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future — Held, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Anr., passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail — Penal Code, 1860 — S. 304 — Tort Law — Negligence — One sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side (Paras 6 to 8)