This court rejected a third bail application in a murder case where the applicant was an accused in indiscriminate firing causing death. The court held bail was not merit-based as the trial had commenced and sufficient evidence existed against the applicant.
Bail application rejected; trial to be expedited.
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. - 25346 of 2018
Applicant :- Mange Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Raj Singhal,Dharmendra Singhal 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 Case Crime No. 53 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Bargaon, DistrictSaharanpur. The first and the second bail applications were rejected by this Court on 17.9.2015 and 28.9.2016 respectively on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
Earlier two bail applications have already been rejected by this Court. It appears that one of the prime reasons for rejecting the bail was that the trial has already commenced. Counsel has been fair enough to admit that a number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and probably all the witnesses of fact have already deposed in the court. Submission is that the trial has not yet concluded therefore, on the ground of detention the applicant should be released on bail.
This Court has again given a re-look to the merits of the case and does not find it to be a fit case where the applicant may be released on bail on merit. The detailed finding with regard to merits of the case are being deliberately avoided lest the same may cause prejudice to the view of the trial court either way. Suffice it to say that in a case of this gravity with such sufficient evidence available on record, case for bail in favour of the applicant is not made out. This is a case in which indiscriminate firing has been resorted to as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Some of the accused were identified on the spot. The applicant was nominated in the F.I.R. itself and was one of the assailants, who made lethal attack causing death of the deceased. Moreover, the matter is now within the realm of the trial court which must adjudicate upon the point of guilt or innocence of accused on the basis of merits of the case and any finding given in this regard by this Court at this stage of the trial is very likely to impair the impartial and independent judgement of the trial court and may cause grave prejudice to the trial this way or that way. So far as the detention period is concerned, in a case of this nature, it cannot be said to be so long drawn out which may constitute any legitimate ground to release the appellant on bail on that ground alone. There is no good ground to release the applicant on bail.
The third bail application therefore also stands rejected.
However, 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.
Order Date :- 17.7.2018 Naresh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case of grave nature where the trial has already commenced.
Whether the duration of detention justifies bail in the absence of other compelling circumstances.
Mange Ram
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
