The High Court dismissed a repeat bail application by Mohd. Asif in a murder case. Rejecting the delay argument as caused by the accused's evasive tactics, the court found no new grounds for bail and directed trial expeditiously.
The bail application was dismissed and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six 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. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19978 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Asif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amir Khan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. V.K. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Amir Khan, the learned counsel representing first informant.
This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant Mohd. Asif, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1832 of 2021, under sections 302, 201, 34 and 404 IPC, police stationKotwali Dehat, District-Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.8.2022, passeed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21526 of 2022. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein under:
"Rejoinder Affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1832 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 404 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was not named in first information report.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant showing his implication in the offence as on 27.11.2011 the applicant accompanied the co-accused persons along with the deceased which fact is further established by CCTV footage. It is also contended that recovery of incriminating articles was made on the pointing of Shakib and Yash with whom the presence of the applicant is proved. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the informant, and perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby
rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. It is made clear that the trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the party. "
Learned counsel for applicant contends that this Court vide order dated 16.8.2022, directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before Court below, provided there is no legal impediment. Even though a period of one year has expired since then, aforesaid trial has not concluded, as yet. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Amir Khan, the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed this application for bail. Learned counsel for first informant contends that copy of order dated 16.8.2022 was not filed by applicant before Court below but by the first informant. Moreover the charges have been framed. The statement-in-chief of P.W.1 has already been recorded. However, on account of lackadaisical approach of accused, the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 could not be concluded. To buttress his submission, he has placed the order sheet of sessions trial pending before Court below.
Perused the order sheet of Sessions Trial No. 2163 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Saqib) now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No-8, Bulandshahr. From the perusal of same, it is evident that except on 6.9.2022, first informant has been regularly attending the Court. The trial has been delayed on account of evasive tactics of applicant. It is thus urged by learned counsel for first informant, that no case for grant of bail is made out. This repeat application for bail is therefore 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 State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, and the submissions urged by learned counsel for first informant which could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
Arshad
Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in trial by the lower court constitutes sufficient ground to grant bail in a life imprisonment case.
Whether the applicant has discovered any new evidence or good ground against his reimplication warranting bail.
Mohd. Asif
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Arshad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
