In 3rd bail application (after two earlier rejections) for trial under section 307 IPC, the learned Judge rejected the plea without commenting on merits, finding it not a fit case for bail as trial approaches disposal.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29901 of 2018
Applicant :- Bheem Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Matiur Rehman Khan,Nisar Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
List revised. No one present for first informant.
Heard Sri M.R. Khan, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
This is 3rd bail application, after rejection for first and second bail applications on merits vide orders dated 7.9.2016 and 11.7.2017, copies filed at Annexure No. S.A.1.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that after rejection of second bail application vide order dated 11.7.2017, the trial has proceeded, but not concluded as yet; that P.W.3 Dhirendra Singh, the alleged eye witness of the incident in question, in his statement on oath as P.W.3 has stated that the incident did take place at about 6:00 p.m. on 30.8.2015, while as per F.I.R. lodged on 25.8.2015, the incident did take place about 6:00 p.m. on 23.8.2015; that in the circumstances it is clear that Dhirendra Singh was not eye witness of the incident and so it is also clear that applicant has been falsely implicated; that the victim and applicant were against each other in election of Village Pradhani, in which third person Fateh Bahadur won the election and due to above political rivalry, applicant has been falsely implicated; that in view of statement of P.W.3, the prosecution case is liable to be thrown out; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 12.10.2015.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that in the incident in question, victim has been shot on right side of his chest, which bullet passed from back and considering the nature and seat of injury, the first two bail applications of applicant were rejected on merits; that the contention of political rivalry are altogether new and were not taken earlier, so will be deemed that had they been taken, would have been disbelieved; that earlier the applicant had taken a plea of alibi; that if due to clerical mistake of reader in the
statement of P.W.3 date of incident has been written as 30.8.2015, applicant will not be able to get advantage, because the F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged on 25.8.2015 and this is nobody case that incident did take place on 30.8.2015; that trial is in progress and there is every likelihood of final disposal of trial in near future; that four prosecutions witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses are left to be examined; that applicant if released on bail shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud the 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 3rd bail application of applicant Bheem Singh in Case Crime No.458 of 2015, under section 307 IPC, P.S. Lar, District Deoria, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is requested to dispose of the trial, if possible within six months in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Tamang
Bheem Singh
State of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
