The Allahabad High Court rejected a third bail application filed by Lullu Pasi in a murder trial. The Court held that no new or good grounds emerged from the additional witness examination or length of incarceration to justify departure from previous bail rejections.
Bail application rejected. Applicant to remain in custody.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100284
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19720 of 2023
Applicant :- Lullu Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This is the third application for bail filed by applicant Lullu Pasi seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0901 of 2018 under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7511 of 2019. The second bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3589 of 2020.
Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant contends that upto this stage four prosecution witnesses have been examined. However, none of them has contradicted the prosecution story that the role of firing gun shot has been assigned to co-accused Deepu Patel @ Deepchandra Patel. On the above premise, he submits that case of applicant is clearly distinguishable from aforesaid accused. He has then invited the attention of the Court to the fact that applicant-appellant is in custody since 05.07.2018. As such he has undergone more than 4 years and 8 months of incarceration. There are no chances of the trial getting concluded in near future. On the above premise he contends that since the role of the applicant is prima facie distinguishable from the main accused and considering the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, he is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of Court to
the recital contained at page 35 of the paper book i.e. the last page of the order dated 09.12.2021. On the basis of above, he submits that since this Court had already declined bail to the applicant on the ground that the case of applicant is distinguishable, therefore, the third bail applicant cannot be allowed on the same ground. He, therefore, submits that no new or good ground has emerged to enlarge the applicant on bail. As such, this repeat application for bail is also liable to be rejected.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the state and upon perusal of record, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The bail application fails and is liable to be rejected.
It is accordingly rejected .
Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Imtiyaz
Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a repeat application despite previous rejections where no new grounds emerged.
Whether four examination of prosecution witnesses and duration of incarceration suffice to distinguish the applicant's role for bail purposes.
Lullu Pasi
Rajeev Misra
Imtiyaz Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
