Sanjeev v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18163 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Yogeshwarr Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State.

This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.24 of 2017, under Section 302, and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 01.05.2017.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is to the effect that as far as the first bail application of the applicant is concerned it was dismissed on the ground of statement of two persons namely Gopal and Rajkamal. The further contention is that subsequent to rejection of the first bail application of the applicant the Gopal has been examined as P.W.-2, the copy of the statement has been annexed on page no.41 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.09.2018, which is on record. The further contention is that the Gopal has given different version at different stages, hence his testimony is not reliable. At one stage he says that he has never given any statement to the police, as he was never examined by the police. Further contention is that as far as the Rajkamal is concerned he has not appeared as an witness for examination before the court concerned, inspite of the facts that at a number of times non-bailable warrants has been issued against him, and this is being done by him, as contended by the counsel for the applicant, because at the relevant date and time of the incident, he was on duty where he is working i.e. ITC Saharanpur.