Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160648
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31570 of 2023
Applicant :- Brijesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Yadav,Karunesh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is the second bail application.
2. First bail application was rejected vide order dated 15.03.2023 by a reasoned order. Relevant paragraphs are mentioned hereinafter:
"7. According to prosecution, applicants along with other co-accused persons have assaulted the persons of complainant side, resulted into death of one person and four persons were injured. Deceased as well as some of injured persons have received injuries from Bhala. Statements collected during investigation indicate consistent view that applicants were carrying a Bhala. It is well settled that F.I.R. was not encyclopedia and injured witnesses have attributed a specific role to applicants and further the Court cannot comment in regard to evidence recording during trial as it may cause prejudice to either parties.
8. Considering the allegation and role assigned to applicants as well as corroboration with medical report, I do not find any reason to grant bail to applicants, accordingly, bail application is rejected."
3. The applicant is in jail since 17.11.2021 and out of 17 proposed prosecution witnesses, 3 prosecution witnesses are already examined, whereas two witnesses of fact and other witnesses are still to be examined.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the nature of evidence presently before the learned trial court is not sufficient to prove the case of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. He further placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported at 2016 LawSuit(SC) 1071 that even the testimony of injured witness if improbable cannot be relied upon. However, this judgment will not help the applicant since it was at the stage of appeal against the conviction whereas in the present case, the testimony of the witnesses is still being recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance on the judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported at AIR 2021 SC 712 that prolonged detention is a good ground for consideration of second bail application.
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State as well as Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the said submission that the evidence against the applicant is consistent in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the trial is proceeding and since the material witnesses are still to be examined, therefore, there is still a probability that in case of bail the applicant may influence the witnesses.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has read out certain portions of the testimony to state that they are not reliable, which is opposed by learned counsel for the complainant that at this stage to read the evidence and give an opinion will influence the trial where testimonies of witnesses of fact are still to be recorded.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily harped on the issue of prolonged detention. In the present case, the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2021 i.e. one year and nine months and he is facing a trial of a very serious offence of murder. As referred above, out of the five witnesses of fact, three have already been examined, therefore, it is a case of speedy trial.
9. In order to consider the submissions on merit, I have perused the examination-in-chief of the witnesses who have specifically named the applicant being part of the unlawful assembly as well as that his presence is consistently proved as well as weapon is also assigned him and all accused persons have caused death of one person who came to rescue. In the occurrence, one person has died and three/four persons were injured.
10. In these above circumstances, taking note that this is a second bail application as well as the trial is proceeding and period of the incarceration of one year and nine months cannot be said to be a prolonged detention.
11. Therefore, considering the nature of allegation and the evidence before the learned trial court also, I do not find any ground to grant bail to applicant at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected.
13. However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a year from today, if there is no legal impediment. The trial court will not grant exemption from appearance to accused who are on bail, in a routine manner as it would be against the principle of 'speedy trial'.
14. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023
Vandit
