The High Court rejected the second bail application. Relying on Supreme Court principles, the bench held that since the trial had commenced with ten witnesses examined, independent assessment of evidence by the trial court must not be prejudiced by interim orders.
Application for bail rejected; trial to conclude within four 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. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49616 of 2020
Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10030 of 2018 was rejected by me on merits vide order dated 05.10.2020.
This application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 533 of 2017, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rudhauli, DistrictBasti, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that trial in the present case has already started and the statements of as many as ten prosecution witnesses have also been recorded.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2017, as such, he be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.
After considering the submissions made at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that when the trial is already in progress, it shall not be proper to give any finding or pass any order on the merits of the case on the basis of the statements given in the court below.
The trial is already in progress and the accused should get the final verdict with regard to his innocence or guilt from the trial court on the basis of appreciation of evidence produced during the course of trial. Analysing the testimonies and worthiness of the witnesses and making the judicial assessment of the same can be more appropriately done by the trial court.
Any finding or order passed by this Court on the merits of the case after assessing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses produced during the course of trial might seriously prejudice the independent assessment of the evidence by the trial court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that any observation made
by this Court may cause prejudice to either side.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, this second bail application is also rejected.
However, trial court is expected to make all endeavours to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties if there is no other legal impediment in concluding the trial.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Nadim
Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.04.07 15:38:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in an ongoing trial where ten prosecution witness statements have been recorded.
Whether a higher court should pass an order on merits during its pendency, potentially prejudicing the trial court.
Jitendra Kumar
Rajiv Gupta
Nadim Alam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
