Allahabad High Court
Umesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23056 of 2021
Applicant :- Umesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Singh,Ali Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.242 of 2016 (Sessions Trial No.1084 of 2016), under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the second bail application on the following new grounds:-
(i) that the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 13.7.2016 and has suffered detention for a period of more than six and half years,
(ii) that there are ample contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, and
(iii) that the statement of the witnesses are inconsistent to each other.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and he has been made an accused out of vengeance to usurp said property.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and also placed much reliance on the statement of PW-2 who is the injured person and the role of the applicant is of participating in the said offence which stands attracted by invoking Section 34 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. has also stated that in all three persons have sustained injuries of which one succumbed later on. There is a dying declaration of the deceased person which also corroborates the prosecution story.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the rival submissions, no new ground is there to press the bail application and the contradictions, if any, are trivial in nature and there being dying declaration of the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023
Vikas
