Second bail application by accused Manish Mishra challenging rejection of first application. Court examined alleged false implication, lack of evidence, and CCTV evidence. Found no new grounds raised. Bail dismissed.
Bail application dismissed. Trial to be concluded 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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA2 No. 106 of 2020 Hon’ble R.C. Kh u lbe, J. Mr. Udai Kumar Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. This is second bail application moved on behalf of the accused Manish Mishra, seeking regular bail, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/ FIR No. 15 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 328, 404 and 411 IPC registered at P.S. Bheemtal District Nainital. The first bail application was rejected on 09.06.2020. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the accused has falsely been implicated in the crime; there is no evidence against him; co- accused Ajay Kumar Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; the prosecution has produced as many as seven witnesses before the trial court; there is no chance of tampering the evidence; accordingly, he is entitled for bail. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed for bail and submitted that no new ground was mentioned in the second bail application; the Court has already rejected the first bail application on merit. The occurrence occurred on 16.05.2019; during investigation, CCTV footage dated 16.05.2019 of Big Mart (Haldwani) was recovered where accused Manish Mishra was wandering with Neelam; in the CCTV footage, the accused was seen following the car which was being driven by co-accused Neelam; apart |
| from that one gold chain was recovered from the possession of the accused; call |
|---|
| details of accused Manish Mishra with co- |
| accused (Neelam) were also recorded during investigation; Narendra Gupta, who |
| appeared as PW7 has stated that on 16.05.2019 at about 2: 00 p.m., when he |
| was in his shop, he saw that Neelam was coming with her husband Avtar Singh (deceased); thereafter, Avtar Singh sat in his car bearing registration no. UK06AF- 8111 at that time Neelam was driving the said car; after that, accused Manish Mishra followed the car with Ajay Yadav; witness Narnedra Gupta identified the present accused on 16.05.2019 at Rudrapur. The statement of Neha, who is the |
| daughter of the deceased was also |
| recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has clearly stated that her |
| mother Neelam used to prepare food for |
| the accused and he took her mother |
| Neelam to Mathura, Vrindavan for three to |
| four days where they stayed in a hotel; the matter is under trial; there are |
| chances of tampering the evidence, if the accused is released on bail at this stage. No good ground is made out to grant bail to the accused. The bail application is hereby |
| dismissed. The Court concerned is directed to |
| record the statement of the witnesses as |
| early as possible and try to conclude the trial within four months. ( R.C. Kh u lbe, J.) 0 1 .1 0 .2 0 2 1 Parul |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail when a prior application was rejected on merit without new grounds.
Whether the affidavits and materials on record warrant a change in the earlier order rejecting bail.
Manish Mishra
State
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
