The single-judge court rejected the second bail application of the applicant accused of causing grievous hurt and murder. No new grounds were found warranting release in light of the prior rejection on merits.
Bail application rejected; trial to conclude within 8 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. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47947 of 2018
Applicant :- Ramjee Yadav @ Guddu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harikrishna Rajesh,Inder Pal Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Ramjee Yadav @ Guddu Yadav who is involved in Case Crime No. 173 of 2016, under section 307, 302, 326, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Haldharpur, District Mau. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit by this court vide order dated 23.5.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 1.3.2016. The trial has not been concluded till date. It has been further submitted that at the time of medical examination 80 % burn has been found to the deceased and in medical report it has been mentioned that the burn up to 80 % is due to cylinder blast. General condition of the deceased was very poor and she was not in state of mind to give any statement. The dying declaration of the deceased is not believable. The real fact is that the deceased herself set her on fire. 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 a neighbour of the deceased. In the first information report it has been mentioned that the applicant entered into the house of the deceased and set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. The dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded on 26.2.2016 in which she has stated that the applicant set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. The deceased died on 12.3.2016 during treatment. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
The deceased in her dying declaration has made specific allegation against the applicant to set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit by this court vide order dated 23.5.2019.
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 new ground in this second bail application 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 8 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Gss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether applicant is entitled to bail in light of rejection in merits and lack of new grounds.
Whether applicant should be released on bail considering the nature of accusation under 307, 302 IPC.
Ramjee Yadav @ Guddu Yadav
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
