The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure over the Police officials for not informing the public prosecutor in time on the bail application, despite the directions from the Court.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot said due to not providing information to the public prosecutor in time, the accused had to remain in jail for a long time unnecessarily and the bail applications were not disposed of in time.
The Court passed this order on June 10, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Sanjay alias Mausam.
A First Information Report was lodged against the applicant at Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya on September 14, 2020 under Section 394 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Auraiya, on March 2, 2021. The applicant is in jail since September 26, 2020, pursuant to the said FIR.
Santosh Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He said the FIR was lodged seven days after the incident. The delay is fatal to the case of prosecution. The applicant was not named in the FIR. There were no independent witnesses to the recovery. False recovery of some articles has been shown from the applicant. The applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal history.
Santosh Kumar Shukla, Counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions from the record.
Additional Government Advocate does not have any instructions from the police authorities. The police authorities failed to provide instructions to the A.G.A. despite ample time being given for the same. No good cause has been shown for absence of instructions. It is no longer appropriate to keep the bail application pending for the default of police authorities.
“The Court repeatedly noticed failure of the police authorities to provide instructions to the Government Advocate of bail applications from time to time. More than once, the senior most police officers, including the Director General of Police, UP, have been alerted to the fact that failure to provide timely instructions to the Government Advocate in bail applications strikes at the root of law.
“It often leads to unjustified incarceration of an accused in jail or grant of bail in an undeserving case, since complete facts are not referred to the Court. The disregard shown by the senior most officials to the orders passed by the Court has grave consequences on the rule of law in the country.
“However, such repeated defaults reflect aberrations in the system and also on part of individual officials, who need to be appropriately counselled in this regard,” it added.
The Bench noted, “Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation. These circumstances shall also be factored in, while considering bail applications on behalf of the accused persons.”
“I see merit in the submissions of Santosh Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed”, the Court said.
The Court ordered that, “Let the applicant- Sanjay@ Mausam be released on bail in Case Crime No. 725 of 2020 at Police Station- Kotwali Auraiya, District- Auraiya registered on September 14, 2020 under Sections 394, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 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”
(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
(ii) 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.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial in order to secure his presence may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case the applicant fails 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.
Read Also: Supreme Court to take up plea challenging Madras HC order against murder conviction
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vi) The concernAllaed 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.
Source: ILNS