Dismissed

Patariya @ Arvind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020BAIL/4424/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected a second bail application in a murder trial, holding that existing eyewitness testimony is credible and trial delay does not justify bail release.

What the court decided

AI extract

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4424 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Patariya @ Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Patariya @ Arvind with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 22 of 2006, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Mansukhpura, District - Agra , during pendency of trial.

¶7

This is a second bail application. First bail application of the applicant had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2018. At that stage, it has been noted that the main role of causing fatal injury has been assigned to the applicant and there was eyewitness account of the occurrence.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that at the trial, discrepancies emerged from the plain reading of the statement of the eyewitness, inasmuch as, one of the eyewitness Bhuri Singh has, during his cross-examination, clearly stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Further, reference has been made to the fact that the other accused has already been enlarged on bail and that despite the direction issued by this Court to conclude the trial within six months, the trial has still remained pending for more than two years.

¶9

The second bail application of the applicant has been opposed by learned AGA. He would submit that the discrepancy as pointed out, is not material, inasmuch as, the

¶10

informant eye-witness has clearly supported the FIR allegation and no discrepancy has been shown from his testimony. The case of the applicant is stated to be is not on parity with the other case, inasmuch as, the role of causing fatal injury is ascribed to the present applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, inasmuch as, it cannot be denied at this stage that the first informant, who is also eye-witness, has supported the prosecution story and there is no discrepancy shown from his testimony, no ground is made out for grant of second bail application. The parity claimed is found to be not existing, in view of the facts stated above.

¶12

Insofar as the delay in the trial is concerned, it cannot be denied that in the normal situation, the trial may have been concluded by now. At the same time, it also cannot give rise to the ground for grant of second bail application.

¶13

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected . Insofar as the direction had already been issued to conclude the trial, it is expected that the learned court below shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as early as possible, if possible, by hearing the case on day to day basis.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Prakhar

Patariya @ Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Patariya @ Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Pundir Vs Chokhe Singh and 2 Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs Member Board of Revenue and 5 Others

Ram Ratan @ Babban Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Robin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Hardayal @ Gande Giri Vs State of U.P.