This is a bail application where the applicant, Jagpal Singh, sought release after his first bail application was rejected on merits. The High Court rejected the plea, finding it not a fit case for bail, and directed expedited conclusion of the trial.
Bail application rejected; Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.
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. - 35373 of 2016
Applicant :- Jagpal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsher Singh,Madhur Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Third supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
This is second bail application of applicant after rejection of his first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11180 of 2016 on merits vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that after rejection of first bail application on merits P.W.-2 Gurpreet Singh, the injured witness has also been examined and there are material contradictions in the statements of first informant P.W.-1 and injured witness P.W.-2; that in view of above contradictions it appears that first informant was not eye witness of the incident and other eye witnesses have also been falsely planted; that no recovery of fire arm has been made from applicant and coaccused Jagdish Singh, father of applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.5.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18483 of 2015, copy produced for perusal and is taken on record; that applicant is a teacher and has no criminal history; that there is no possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence and applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 21.1.2015.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that first bail application was rejected on merits after considering all aspects and there is no new ground for second bail; that at the time of rejection of first bail application of applicant co-accused Jagdish Singh had been granted bail and so there is no new development; that Jagdish Singh had been assigned with different role and applicant may not seek parity with Jagdish Singh; that bail application of co-accused Pinda has been rejected by this Court; that it is wrong to say that there is any
contradiction in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and moreover the evidence is to be assessed by trial court at the time of final disposal; that applicant if released on bail shall delay and defraud the disposal of fair trial; that trial is in progress and there is every likelihood of its early disposal.
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 second bail application of applicant Jagpal Singh in Case Crime No.23 of 2015 (S.T. No.232 of 2015), under Sections 302, 307/34, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either side.
Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Kpy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application of the accused requires to be allowed considering the rejection of the first on merits.
Whether the contradictions in prosecution witness statements constitute a new ground for granting bail.
Jagpal Singh
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
