Third bail application rejected. Court noted that prior appeals were disposed of on merit and found no new grounds to alter the view. Trial expedite
Prayer for bail rejected. Trial to be concluded within one year, otherwise liberty to renew bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15952 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This third bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in S.T. No. 1049 of 2016, State vs. Ram Chandra, Case Crime No. 96 of 2015, u/ss. 147, 323, 504, 506, 324, 452, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Handia, District- Allahabad. The first and the second bail application were rejected by this Court on 22.7.2016 and 2.5.2017 on merit respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Counsel has tried to show some inconsistencies in the role played by the applicant and has tried to show the statement of the first informant's wife Smt. Radha Devi in which she has given a prevaricating statement as to who caused the lathi blow on the head on the deceased. Further submission of counsel for the applicant is also that after rejection of earlier bail applications, no witness has been produced so far by the prosecution. Therefore, the applicant should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
The perusal of earlier bail rejection order reveals that merits of the case have already been considered by the Court and therefore, there is no good ground to enter in to the same and revisit the findings of the Court. This Court did not deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail then and at this stage also there appear no good reason to take a different view.
Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is expected that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
However, it may be further observed that if the trial is not concluded within one year from now, for no fault attributable to the applicant, he will have the liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
Order Date :- 18.5.2018
Naresh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the applicant in a third bail application considering inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of prosecution witnesses.
Ram Chandra Yadav
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
