Allahabad High Court
Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8178 of 2023
Applicant :- Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Dharmendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
By means of this third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1055 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide detail order dated 03.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25146 of 2021 on merits. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41390 of 2021.
As per the prosecution case in brief, an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant-Navneet, son of Rajesh Chawda, resident of Greep Society B-12 S.L.F, Flat No. 001, Ved Vihar, police station Loni at Case Crime No. 1055 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad to the effect that on 05.12.2020 at about 9.00 in the night, some altercation took place between the informant-Navneet and his brother Akash on one side and his neighbour Sonu Dedha on the other. In the meantime, Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar (present applicant) and one Anuj Giri also came there. However, they later on left the place by extending threat. On the same day at about 11.00 in the night, the co-accused, Sonu Dedha and the present applicant Sachin Dedha @ Sachin Kumar armed with country-made pistol came to the house of the informant and with an intention to kill, fired at his father, who was standing in the balcony of his house. The father of the informant has sustained serious injuries by which he succumbed to injuries.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.12.2020 but his trial has not yet been concluded. It is also pointed out that the applicant has not been charge-sheeted in case crime no. 466 of 2021, under Sections 386 and 507 I.P.C., registered against his brother Sonu Dedha at police station-Loni District Ghaziabad.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 03.08.2021 considering inter alia that main role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to the present applicant and his brother Sonu Dedha, which is corroborated from the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased. Cause of death of the deceased is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem gun shot injury. It is also argued that in view of the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 1999 Cri LJ 3709, it is well settled that those grounds which have already been taken and considered or were already available at the time of considering the first bail application cannot be taken into consideration again in subsequent bail application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that no new ground has been put forth by the applicant except the detention period of the applicant as noted above and that the applicant has no criminal history. I also find that the applicant has neither filed order-sheet of the trial Court nor mentioned the present status of the trial of the applicant.
Considering the gravity of the offence and nature of accusation as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
Considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude his trial expeditiously.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below as well as informant.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023
Shubham
