Single judge rejected a second bail application in a case involving an attempt to murder. The court held that no fresh grounds for reconsideration of merits were shown and detention was justified due to the gravity of the crime.
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. - 33543 of 2016
Applicant :- Dilshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga, Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
There is illness slip of Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate but the counsel Shri Rajeev Sisodia filed his power today on behalf of applicant containing no objection certificate given by the previous counsel.
This second application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.442 of 2014, u/s 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Kairana, District-Shamli. First bail application was rejected by this Court on merits on 4.2.2016.
Heard Shri Rajeev Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Counsel for the applicant has been fair enough to concede that the applicant is the main shooter and as a result of firing resorted to by the accused the victim received a through and through firearm wound in his chest, the most vital part of the body. The only submission raised by the counsel is that it appears to be a case where the accused does not appear to have any previous planning or intention to cause death and that after the rejection of the bail, the trial has not been concluded yet, and therefore, on the ground of his detention the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Perusal of earlier bail order reveals that the merits of the case have already been considered and therefore there is no justification to revisit the same again and again. So far as the period of detention of the applicant is concerned, in a case of this gravity where the victim's survival appears to be more an act of Providence while the accused did all which he could within his power in order to eliminate the victim who had a close shave with death, the period of detention cannot be said to be so long drawn out that the applicant may be released on bail on that ground alone. Counsel for the applicant has not been
able to point out any good fresh ground which may persuade this Court to allow bail of the applicant.
The second bail application of the applicant, therefore, stands rejected.
However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.
Order Date :- 25.5.2018 M. Kumar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second bail application should be allowed given the gravity of the offence and lack of fresh grounds for fresh consideration?
Dilshad
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
