Satish vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Sri Atul Sisodia and Sri Rajeev Sisodia, advocates, have filed memo of appearance on behalf of the applicant. Earlier engaged counsel Sri P. S. Pundir is not present to argue on the bail application. Hence, Sri Atul Sisodia and Sri Rajeev Sisodia advocates are permitted to appear as counsel on behalf of the applicant.

Applicant has filed rejoinder-affidavit, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Atul Sisodia advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

An F.I.R. was lodged on 18.9.2008 at 9.30 a.m. by the complainant Babloo s/o Ishwar Singh at P. S. Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar, where a case u/s 379, I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 621 of 2008 against four unknown persons. The allegation in the F.I.R., in brief, is that Truck No. HR-38K/7287 was stolen by unknown persons on 17.9.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. Further case of the prosecution is that the said truck was recovered on 19.10.2008 from the possession of accused Manoj s/o Gyan Singh, Anup Sharma s/o Ram Swaroop Sharma and Satish s/o Kartar Singh (applicant herein) in a police encounter which took place at about 9.30 p.m.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the applicant was sitting in the truck as passenger and after recovery of the truck, the co-accused Manoj and Anoop as well as the applicant were falsely roped in this case.

Next submissions is that no recovery of any other incriminating article was made from the applicant. It is also submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant except present case.

It is further submitted that regarding the same incident, a case u/s 307/34, I.P.C. at Crime No. 281 of 2008 was also registered against the applicant and co-accused persons, in which all the accused persons have been acquitted vide judgment dated 18.3.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 181 of 2009, State v. Manoj and others and hence on this ground also, the applicant deserves bail in present case. For this submission, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the copy of the judgment, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit.

Next submission of the learned Counsel is that the applicant is in jail since 19.10.2008 and on the basis of detention period in jail also, the applicant deserves bail.

The bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. on the ground that stolen truck was recovered from possession of the applicant and co-accused persons and hence, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserve bail.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties counsel and keeping in view the fact that stolen truck was recovered from the applicant and co-accused persons, without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant does not deserve bail.

So far as the judgment of acquittal of applicant and other accused in S.T. No. 181 of 2009 is concerned, that judgment is not relevant and admissible in present case and on the basis of that judgment no benefit can be extended to the applicant in this case, as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar (2006) 1 SCC 209: 2006 (1) ACR 128 (SC).

In my considered opinion, on the basis of the period of incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, I would like to refer the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others LXIII 2008 ACC 115: 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the applicant has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under-trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the bail applications of the applicant Satish is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within six months making sincere efforts and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action.