This judgment rejects the second bail application of the respondent accused Gurdayal. The court found that no case for bail was made out given the nature of the offense and prior rejection of his first application on merits.
Application for bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within nine 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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2098 of 2019
Applicant :- Gurdayal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Dhar Goswami,Kamal Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga,Dileep Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Dhar Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of first informant.
The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime no. 382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 307, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by learned Senior counsel that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 30.03.2018 and after that statement of inured/PW-1 Smt. Shanti has been recorded. Learned Senior Counsel has referred several parts of her crossexamination and submitted that the facts emerged in her crossexamination show that she is not an eye-witness of alleged incident. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that in her cross-examination, PW-1 Smt. Shanti has inter alia stated that when the incident took place, the miscreants have caught them while they were still sleeping and they have given a blow at her head and later on she has become unconscious. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that all these facts
show that PW-1 has not witnessed the assailants. It has also been pointed out that PW-1 has also stated that she has four sons, who were living separately and that there was some dispute between her son Veer Singh and Mahesh over property and she has also stated that her husband has filed a case against sons in the year 1986. It was submitted that all these facts show that there was dispute among the sons of deceased as well as between the deceased and his sons. It has also been pointed out that in her cross-examination PW-1 has also stated that when she returned back from Delhi she has found that her several household articles were lying scattered and broken and locks of almirah etc were lying opened and that jewellery and other valuables were missing and she has also stated that regarding the robbery, Rajesh and Raj Beer have not told him. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that these facts clearly show that first informant is not an eye-witness and that in view of facts of the matter, the involvement of any of the son of deceased or any other person can not be ruled out. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2015 and that trial has not been concluded so far.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7233 of 2016. Learned A.G.A. submitted that PW-1 Smt. Shanti has supported the prosecution version before the trial Court and the facts indicated by the learned Senior Counsel in her crossexamination, cannot be appreciated at this stage. The evidence of PW-1 is yet to be considered by the trial Court. It has been submitted that both the injured have clearly stated about the involvement of applicant in the incident and that the deceased has sustained as many as 11 injuries. The trial of the case is in
progress and some material witnesses are yet to be examined.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and all attending facts and circumstances of case, no case for bail is made out in this second bail application, hence, the second bail application of applicant Gurdayal is hereby rejected .
However, keeping in view period of incarceration of applicant, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 25.11.2021 A. Tripathi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the second applicant in a murder trial where his first bail application was rejected.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurdayal
Raj Beer Singh
A. Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
