Allahabad High Court
Sukhram Bind @ Baba vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92086
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11748 of 2024
Applicant :- Sukhram Bind @ Baba
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Dhananjay Yadav,Nagendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by a reasoned order dated 21.3.2023 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
"7. Considering the nature of evidence i.e. the applicant was seen with an axe, which was recovered on his pointing out, motive attributed that he was in illegal relationship with deceased's wife as well as that nature of antemortem injury could be attributed to an axe and considering seriousness of crime as well as active participation of applicant in crime, no case of bail is made out.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected".
2.Heard Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
3. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of proposed 23 prosecution witnesses only three have been examined including the witness of last seen. He further submits that there are two eye witness account in the present case and none of them have lastly seen deceased with the applicant. Only one witness has seen the applicant at relevant time along with a blood stained 'Tangari', as such, such evidence is not sufficient to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that allegedly wife of deceased was in illicit relationship with the applicant and this was reason to commit crime as deceased has objected to said relationship, however, there is no cogent evidence to support it.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 10.8.2021 i.e. about two years and nine months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
6. Learned A.G.A. submits that at this stage when the trial is pending and statement of other witnesses are still to be recorded, Court may not venture into the part of testimony as any comment made by this Court would adversely affect the case of either of parties.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances considering the subsequent events as referred above and that prima-facie there is sufficient evidence against the applicant as well as that at this stage few part of cross-examination could not be considered so much as there is no case against the applicant.
8. In regard to prolong detention, this Court takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in in Ajwar Vs. Waseem & Ors, 2024 INSC 438.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering that there is no subsequent event for purpose of consideration of present second bail application, therefore, this second bail application is rejected and learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the trial within a period of ten months, and in case it has not substantially proceeded within the aforesaid period, applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court or learned Trial Court as advised along with status of trial.
10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
SB
