Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Umesh Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7642 of 2023
Applicant :- Mahendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel contends that the applicant accused is aged about 73 years old, there is dispute regarding identity of the applicant accused as the name of the father of the accused is Gopi chand not Panna Lal. Co-accused Smt. Rammurti Devi has been acquitted. The charge sheet has been submitted against one Mahendra Singh S/o Panna Lal. Even in the statement on oath, the witness P.W. 1 has deposed that Panna Lal was the father of the accused. On the basis of above the bail application deserves to be allowed. Contrary to that learned A.G.A. contends that so far as the identity and parentage of the accused is concerned, it has already been established up to the High Court that the applicant accused is the main accused and there was no dispute regarding his identity. In this regard learned A.G.A. contends that the applicant accused created a doubt before the concerned Magistrate who discharged the accused on 22.03.1979 concluding that there was difference in the parentage of the accused.
The order of the Magistrate was challenged before the learned A.S.J Agra who set aside the order on 10.11.1981 in Criminal Revision No. 115/1979 and concluded that there is no dispute regarding parentage of the accused and the accused applicant, against whom F.I.R. was lodged and charge-sheet had been submitted was the real accused.
Being aggrieved the applicant accused challenged the order of the learned A.S.J. in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8325 of 1983 Mahendra Vs. State of U.P. and another which was declined on 08.03.1984 and it had been held by this Court that the applicant accused was the person against whom an FIR had been lodged and charged sheet had been submitted.
At this stage learned counsel for the applicant is again reiterating and taking the same ground that he is not the person against whom FIR had been lodged and charge sheet had been submitted. This Court is of the view that in view of the judgment of the Revisional Court and the High Court, this plea and ground is not available to the applicant.
So far as the severity and nature of offence is concerned the applicant is the named accused against whom FIR had been lodged and after due investigation charge sheet has been submitted.
Learned A.G.A contends that when his application of the accused had been rejected by this Court in the year of 1984, it was duty of the applicant to appear before the concerned Court. But he fled away and he could be arrested only in the year 2022. Learned A.G.A. contends that considering the lingering tactics adopted by the applicant and considering the fact that he is an absconder since 1984 till his arrest in the year 2022, the applicant does not deserves bail. He further contends that from the post mortem report it has been established that the deceased was killed by the accused by gun-shot. It has been established that the accused had caused fire arm injury to the deceased, which resulted into death of the deceased.
Learned A.G.A. further contends that the witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution version even in their deposition before the concerned Court and they have recognized the applicant accused during the course of deposition. Hence no ground of bail arises.
On the basis of above discussion this court is of the view that the applicant could not establish a sound case to grant the bail. Mere old age is not enough to grant the bail for an accused who was absconding since 1984.
Accordingly, the instant application for bail is rejected.
However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2022, the learned trial Court concerned is directed to get the trial concluded with utmost expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy/computerized copy of this order, in case there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.
Order Date :- 24.3.2023
Satish
