It Is Prosecution’s Duty To Prosecute Accused At The Earliest: Allahabad HC Grants Bail To A Man Accused Of Cheating Over Delay In Framing Of Charges

A single judge bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan thus observed, “A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court would demonstrate that the applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. However, till date no charge has been framed and general dates regarding presence of the applicant is being given. It is the duty of the prosecution to prosecute the accused person at the earliest. The delay defeat justice”.

Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi appeared for the applicant.

In the present case, the applicant was accused of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and is in jail since September 14, 2022. It was the second bail application filed by the applicant (aged 59 years) where the first application was rejected by the Court through an order dated January 2, 2023. The applicant while relying on the judgment in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422 had contended that the trial is not proceedings in the matter and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

It is pertinent to note that in R.D. Upadhyay’s case, the Apex Court had directed the accused person to be release on bail who were charged with cheating after detention of more than one year. It had observed, "3. So far as the cases regarding attempt of murder are concerned, we direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the undertrials shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Customs, under Section 326 I.P.C., under Section 324 I.P.C., Riots and under Section 354 I.P.C. who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases where the undertrial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may consider -- keeping in view of the facts of each case especially the period spent in jail -- releasing them on bail by furnishing personal bonds."

It is also pertinent to note that the State did not dispute the factual matrix of the case as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay’s case.

Therefore, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions on behalf o the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court allowed the bail application.

Cause Title: Madan Gopal@ Madan Gopal Gaur v. State Of U.P [Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:186969]