In this third bail application regarding a murder case, the High Court rejected the prayer for bail due to the applicant's assigned main role, daylight occurrence, and corroborated prosecution evidence. The Court directed the Trial Court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Bail application rejected.
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. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9810 of 2016 Applicant :- Ateeq Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Vijai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is the third bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 576 of 2013, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Soraon, District- Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Bench by order dated 24.02.2015 and thereafter the second bail application was also rejected by order dated 26.08.2015. While rejecting the bail application, it was noticed that the applicant was assigned main role; it was a day light occurrence; and the medical evidence corroborated the allegation. However, while rejecting the first bail application, this Court had directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months.
The third bail application has been filed by claiming that despite direction of this Court to conclude the trial within six months, the trial has not yet been concluded although statement of few witnesses, who are eyewitnesses of the incident, have been recorded. It has been submitted that as the applicant has already suffered incarceration since 2013, continued under-trial incarceration for an indefinite period is not justified in view of the directions given by the apex court in various judgments which require completion of trial within a specified time bound period.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for bail and has submitted that specific role has been assigned to the applicant, therefore, it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted bail.
Be that as it may, this is a case of day light murder and the eye-witnesses, who have so far been examined, have not resiled from the prosecution case and main role of firing is attributed to the applicant. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is rejected .
However, it is observed that the trial court would endeavour to conclude the trial on day to day basis and if the witnesses, who are still to be examined, are not cooperating, then the trial court should not hesitate in taking coercive steps against them for completion of the trial.
Order Date :- 5.1.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to the applicant despite previous rejections and no significant change in circumstances, considering the nature of the offence and lack of corroboration issues?
Whether the Trial Court should take coercive steps against non-cooperating witnesses to expeditiously conclude the trial as ordered by this Court?
Ateeq Ahmad
Manoj Misra
Sunil Kr Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
