.jpg)
The Allahabad High Court in Suresh Yadav Opposite Party v/s State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy Deptt. Home while denying bail to the accused applicant stated that the 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.
The Court observed, “When the accused are not cooperating in the trial and the accused-applicant is accused of the 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 facts of this case are that the accused applicant killed a young man after an altercation and pushed him away to a distance to make it look like an accident, and has not at all been cooperating in the procedure to ensure an early conclusion of the trial.
Therefore the Court remarked, "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.”
“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 accused-applicant, who allegedly along with the other co-accused has committed heinous offence, can not complain of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when he himself is not cooperating in early conclusion of the trial.”