This court rejected a second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. holding that fresh arguments based on facts available in the first rejected application are not permissible, relying on Satya Pal. The bail plea was dismissed due to lack of new grounds.
Bail application rejected; direction to trial court to conclude trial within one year.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44891 of 2022
Applicant :- Arun @ Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Ashish Dutt Dubey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Tripathi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.
By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant- Arun @ Deepak, who is involved in Case Crime No. 367 of 2019, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Achhnera, District Agra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 17.08.2021 by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28088 of 2020.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a case of absolutely no evidence. The applicant has been made accused on the basis of his confessional statement which is not admissible in evidence. Recovery of skeleton of the deceased has been shown at the joint pointing out of the present applicant Arun @ Deepak as well as Lalit Kishore from an open place after one month. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 14.11.2019 but his trial has not been concluded. Considering the statement of PW-1, the case against the applicant will not travel beyond Section 201 I.P.C., which is a bailable offence.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicant have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 17.08.2021, therefore, the same cannot be considered again. So far as the delay in concluding the trial of the applicant is concerned, it is pointed out that in this case, there were three accused namely Lalit Kishore, Shalini Bhadauria and Arun @ Deepak, out of whom Lalit Kishore has died but on account of non-appearance of co-accused Shalini Bhadauria and moving applications for exemption of her appearance as well as non coming of the applicant to the court from jail on several dates, the delay has occurred and the prosecution witnesses could not be examined. They also pointed out that examination-in-chief of PW-1 Hari Ram Sharma who is informant of this case has been completed on 04.03.2023 but his cross-examination has not yet been started.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that all the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant except the detention period of the applicant have already been considered in the first bail application of the applicant.
Here it would be relevant to mention that before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 37 ACC 287 , the following question had been referred by learned Single Judge for decision :-
"Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected."
After wholesome treatment, the Division Bench has answered as under :-
"Accordingly our answer to the question referred is that fresh arguments in a second bail application for an accused cannot be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected."
So far as the statement of PW-1 is concerned, his cross-examination is yet to be done however he, in
his examination-in-chief, prima-facie supported the prosecution case. I also find that the case of Shalini Bhadauria who is on bail vide order dated 18.03.2021 is distinguishable from the case of present applicant.
In view of the above, there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected .
However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within one year without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties by fixing short dates. In case the prosecution witnesses do not appear before the trial court, coercive steps shall be taken against them to ensure their presence for early conclusion of the trial.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether fresh arguments in a second bail application can be advanced on facts available during the first rejected application.
Whether the delay in concluding the trial warrants enlargement on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 37 ACC 287Followed¶13
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 37 ACC 287
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun @ Deepak
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
