Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita Devi vs State Of U.P. on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21374 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Anita Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Anita Devi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.374 of 2020, u/s 302, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Chhatari, District Bulandshahar.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.9.2021 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28270 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that trial in the present matter is going on in which two witnesses namely Hari Kishan, the first informant and Vipin Kumar Sharma have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. It is argued that looking to the said statement, the implication of the applicant is false in the present case as there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is argued that now only formal witnesses have to be examined and as such there is no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence. The applicant is in jail since 4.10.2020.
Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court by a detailed order on merits on 29.9.2021. It is argued that since the trial is in progress, releasing the applicant at this stage may have adverse effect on trial, hence present bail application be rejected by this Court.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by a detailed order on merits by this Court. Appreciating the statement would not be in the fitness of things to release the applicant on bail since the trial is in progress.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
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, Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P: Criminal Appeal No.339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022) and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No:- 8905 /2022: Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another), subject to any legal impediment.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
Gaurav
