Allahabad High Court
Chand @ Kasim vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9367 of 2021
Applicant :- Chand @ Kasim
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh,Sheshadri Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Chand @ Kasim, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.100 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. (as he then was) vide order dated 4.7.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41441 of 2016 (Chand @ Kasim Vs. State of U.P.).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed para 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and has argued that trial has started in which till 29.01.2019, five witnesses have been examined, however, the said trial is still pending and there is no possibility of its early conclusion. He has placed the order sheet of the trial court from 9.9.2015 to 5.10.2020 which is annexure no.10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 2.4.2015 and has undergone sufficient period of time and as such he may be considered to be released on bail. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit.
Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits. The trial is at an advance stage. The release of the applicant may have an adverse effect on trial.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits. In the trial, five witnesses have been examined, the same is pending disposal.
Looking to the said fact and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P: Criminal Appeal No.339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 9.5.2022
Gaurav
