Single judge rejected the second bail application of the applicant, a second-degree assault convict, finding him not a fit case for bail despite the absence of prosecuted witnesses.
Bail application is rejected. Trial to conclude in nine months.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16224 of 2018
Applicant :- Jeetu Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai,Anshul Nigam,Rekha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This is second bail application after rejection of first bail application by this Bench vide order dated 28.08.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40469 of 2016.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that in this case charge-sheet was submitted on 26.04.2017 and despite rejection of first bail application of applicant, charges were framed against him on 21.09.2017; that applicant did not seek even a single adjournment but till date neither first informant nor injured nor any other witness has been produced by prosecution; that applicant has been falsely implicated for causing gun shot injury in head of Amit; that after incident, Amit was married on 06.02.2017 as per copy of wedding card at S.A.-2, and he is hale and hearty as per certificate of village pradhan at S.A.-3; that applicant is languishing in jail since last 2 years and 8 months and may release on bail; that applicant was falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 156 of 2008 for minor offence under Section 188 Cr.P.C. P.S. Jaitipur District Shahjahanpur in which he has been acquitted; that apart from above, applicant was also falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 151 of 2016 under Section 25/27 Arms Act after his false implication in this case; that vide order dated 23.10.2018 at S.A.-1, trial court further directed prosecution to ensure presence of prosecution witnesses but still no prosecution witness has been produced.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that applicant attempted on life of Amit and caused gun shot injury in his head; that survival of Amit does not make his offence lighter; that marriage of
injured person has no relevancy and village pradhan has no authority to give certificate of his fitness; that applicant if released on bail, shall misuse the liberty of bail and fair disposal of trial.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Jeetu Pathak in Case Crime No. 149 of 2016 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jaitipur District Shahjahanpur is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is requested to conclude the trial in nine months in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 M. ARIF
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail considering the pendency of trial and lack of prosecution witnesses.
Jeetu Pathak
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
