Dushyant vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the applicant had previously appeared and contested the proceedings. Although the trial could not conclude and the applicant subsequently failed to appear, leading to a non-bailable warrant, the applicant has now surrendered and remained confined for over two months. The Court found no reasonable apprehension from the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court opined that the applicant deserves bail. The operative directions were to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including appearance on fixed dates, not tampering with evidence, not pressuring witnesses, and not leaving the district without leave of the trial court. The Court expressly left the merits of the case undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Dushyant, sought enlargement on bail in S.T. (GST) No. 3775 of 2010, arising from Case Crime No. 225 of 2002, under Sections 392, 411, 307 IPC, and Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. The applicant had been granted bail by the trial court on October 28, 2003, and participated in the trial for a considerable period. However, due to unavoidable reasons, the applicant failed to appear on subsequent dates, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The applicant surrendered before the trial court on August 2, 2023, and has been in jail since then. The applicant expressed an intention to participate in the trial if enlarged on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Dushyant, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in S.T. (GST) No. 3775 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2002, under Sections 392, 411, 307 IPC, and Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, considering his previous grant of bail, subsequent non-appearance, surrender, and period of incarceration. Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant had previously been granted bail and participated in the trial. Despite non-appearance on subsequent dates leading to a non-bailable warrant, the applicant surrendered and has been in jail since August 2, 2023. The applicant intends to participate in the trial and will not misuse liberty. The trial has not concluded, and there is no hope of early conclusion. Arguments for the State: The learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions from the record.