"Heinous Crime Accused Can't Complain Of Violation Of Article 21 When He Isn't Cooperating In Trial": Allahabad HC Denies Bail

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a heinous crime accused can not complain of the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when he himself is not cooperating in the early conclusion of the trial.Denying bail to Suresh Yadav, the prime accused in the 2019 Raebareli-Aditya Murder Case, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh further opined thus:"When the accused are not cooperating in the trial and the accused-applicant is accused of heinous offence of a gruesome murder of a young man in a most dastardly manner, this Court does not find that it is fit case where the accused-applicant should be enlarged on bail."The case in briefAllegations against the accused applicant Yadav and other co-accused are that in October 2019, when the deceased along with his friends went to have a meal at Somu Dhaba (owned by Yadav), some altercation took place and the accused-applicant and other co-accused badly assaulted the deceased and threw his dead body at some distance to give the incident as an accident. It was alleged that CCTV footage of the Somu Dhaba and the area recorded between 10 PM to 1 AM were deleted. The accused persons including the applicant were booked under Sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 323, 120-B, 216 IPC.Now, the accused Yadav moved to the High Court by arguing that even after a lapse of more than two years since the date of the incident, charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced.Submissions advancedHis counsel further submitted that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing in near future. Accused-applicant can not be kept under trial for an indefinite period and therefore, he should be released on bail.It was contended that the case/trial was committed to the court of sessions in utter violation of Section 209 read with Section 207 CrPC and therefore, it was submitted that the trial can not proceed if there had been a violation of Section 209 read with Section 207 CrPC.Lastly, a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-applicant guaranteed under Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India was also alleged by the Counsel for the accused-applicant.On the other hand, the state argued that there is sufficient evidence available against the accused-applicant and other co-accused and that the accused-applicant is the main architect of the crime.It was further informed to the Court that the accused have been given all the papers, which have been filed by the police, and therefore, there is no violation of Section 207 or 209 CrPC. Lastly, it was told to the Court that the accused will have all the papers before the charges are framed.Court's observationsAt the outset, the Court perused the report from the Sessions Court regarding the status of the trial and noted that several accused have not appointed their Lawyers and even though the accused were offered amicus curiae, they refused to accept the amicus curiae. It was also noted by the Court that the accused are lodged in different jails and many accused have filed discharge applications and are not cooperating in the trial.Against this backdrop, the Court, after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel for the accused-applicant as well as by the AGA and the counsel for the complainant, observed thus:"This Court having considered the gravity of offence, the manner in which it has been committed, and the evidence available on record, does not consider that the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The accused applicant is the owner of the Somu Dhaba, where in a fracas, the deceased was beaten and when anyhow he could escape from there on his motorcycle and thereafter he came again, he was allegedly chased by the accused-applicant and other coaccused in two four wheeler vehicles and thereafter he was hit by one of the vehicle and then allegedly he was assaulted and killed in a most gruesome manner, which is evident from the post-mortem report. In view of this, noting that the accused-applicant and other co-accused are not cooperating in the trial and they want to linger on the trial, the Court rejected Yadav's bail plea. AppearancesCounsel for Applicant:- Anupam Mehrotra,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A.,Aakash Prasad,Amitav Singh,Naved Ali,Vikas Vikram SinghCase title - Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy Deptt. Of HomeCase Title - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 224Click Here To Read/Download Order

"Heinous Crime Accused Can't Complain Of Violation Of Article 21 When He Isn't Cooperating In Trial": Allahabad HC Denies Bail

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

"Heinous Crime Accused Can't Complain Of Violation Of Article 21 When He Isn't Cooperating In Trial": Allahabad HC Denies Bail

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers