Single judge rejected a second bail application filed by an accused under Section 302 IPC in a murder case, noting no new grounds despite a prior rejection. Directed trial court to conclude trial within one year.
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. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28984 of 2018
Applicant :- Manmohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Smt. Sadhna Upadhyay,Sri Sant Saran Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Manmohan who is involved in Case Crime No. 107 of 2015, under section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Basai Arela, District Agra. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by another bench of this court vide order dated 13.12.2017.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to prosecution case it is said that on 20.10.2015 the informant Neeraj and the deceased Atul were coming back to their house from Agra by motorcycle no. U.P. 80 DE 1586. The deceased Atul was driving motorcycle. When they reached near Arnauta Railway Crossing the applicant and other co-accused came by motorcycle and the applicant fired upon the deceased at about 7.30 p.m. consequently he died. In the statement of Neeraj ( p.w.-1) it has come that he used to attend second shift of coaching which run from 4.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. He further stated that he could not say as to who was the owner of the motorcycle bearing no. U.P. 80 DE 1586. Neeraj ( p.w.-1) in his statement has not disclosed the name of owner of motorcycle and he used to attend second shift of coaching therefore, it was not possible to see the alleged occurrence. In fact Neeraj (p.w.-1) was not present with the deceased at the time of alleged occurrence. It has been further submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant.
Per contra Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is main accused. Neeraj is eye witness of the alleged incident who was present with the deceased at the
time of alleged occurrence. In his statement recorded as p.w.-1 before the trial court, Neeraj has clearly stated that he and deceased were returning from Agra to their house by motorcycle. On the way the applicant and other co accused met and stopped the motorcycle of the deceased and the applicant fired upon the deceased due to which he sustained gun shot injury on his head and consequently died. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit by another bench of this court. There is no new ground in this second bail application.
Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Gss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a murder case where a previous bail application was rejected on merit and no new grounds are shown.
Manmohan
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
