Allahabad High Court
Baju And Another vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal, Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 44260 of 2014
On behalf of
Itwari .....Applicant
In
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6733 of 2011
Appellant :- Baju And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Singh Chauhan,J.N. Singh,Radheyshyam Shukla-I,Smt. Neelam Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This is 2nd bail application of the appellant. The first bail application of the appellant was rejected on merit by this court vide order dated 17.9.2013.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2011. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. In the statement of P.W. 4 Brijpal Singh it has come that he heard the sound of fire. He saw that Baju was standing with gun and applicant was also standing there and the dead body was lying in the field of Udhan. It has further been submitted that in the statement of P.W. 4 Brijpal it has not come that who shot fire upon the deceased. He had seen Baju with gun. At that time gun was not in the hands of appellant. It has further been submitted that P.W. 2 Reshma Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 3 Dhanpal Singh are said to be the witnesses of last seen. False recovery of alleged looted gun with cartridge has been planted against the appellant after 4 days of the alleged incident. It has further been submitted that during trial the appellant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty of bail. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. has argued that the deceased had gone to his Sasural with licensee gun and cartridge belt of his father. When he was coming back to his village the appellant was with the deceased. In the statement of P.W. 2 Reshma Devi it has come that the appellant had gone with the deceased. P.W. 3 Dhanpal Singh has also seen the appellant going with deceased, thereafter, P.W. 4 has heard the sound of fire and he saw the appellant standing near the place of occurrence. The appellant has been arrested with the alleged looted gun along with cartridge. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record. The first bail application of the appellant has been rejected on merit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we do not find any new ground in the second bail application.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the appellant is refused and the second bail application of the appellant is rejected.
However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited.
Office is directed to prepare the paper books within a period of 30 days from today and list this appeal for final hearing before appropriate bench.
Order Date :- 10.5.2019
Masarrat
