Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13154 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Priyanka Srivastava,Bipin Lal Srivastava,Pulak Ganguly,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava,Vinayak Varma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinayak Varma, leanred counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This is a second application for bail moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Ajeet Tripathi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 433 of 2017, under Sections 328, 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC, police station Sector C-20 NOIDA, district Gautam Buddh Nagar. First application for bail has been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.7.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42465 of 2017.
The instant second bail application has been pressed mainly on the ground that as per the prosecution case, dead body of the deceased, aged about four years, was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Vipin and Kedar Kumar Shah in the presence of informant, Devanand Sahu and witnesses Sonam Kumar Shah and Sanjay Mahto, who have been examined as PWs-1, 2 and 5, before the trial court but they have been declared hostile, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of the applicant. It is next submitted by Mr. Verma that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.4.2017 and considering the statement of PWs-1, 2 and 5 as well as detention period of the applicant, he should be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the the informant/PW-1, PW-2, Sanjay Mahto in their examination-in-chief have supported the prosecution case, but in cross- examination they have diluted the role of applicant, therefore, possibility of wining over the prosecution witnesses at the later stage cannot be ruled out. It is also pointed out that Sonam Kumar Shah, PW-5 has proved his signature on exhibit-2, but in cross-examination he has diluted the role of applicant and also stated that he had given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on his own free will. It is also submitted that perusal of aforesaid statements of PWs-1, 2 and 5, it is apparently clear that they have not been declared hostile by the prosecution before the trial court. Lastly, it is submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and further considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that PWs-1, 2 and 5 have fully supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief and have not been declared hostile by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that in the matter like this period of detention cannot be said to be so long drawn, which by itself may constitute any good ground to release the accused applicant on bail on that basis alone. Since, prosecution witnesses have been examined and trial is proceeding, which is at the advanced stage, therefore, without recording any finding on merit, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
The second application for bail is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
The observation made herein above is only limited for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led uninfluenced by anything expressed in this order.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Sumaira Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Date: 2021.09.24 17:48:35 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad