Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 226 of 2014
Appellant :- Arjun
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Prashant Kumar Singh,Rajiv Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Ref:- Order on Second Bail Application No. 358526 of 2016.
Heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application, which has been moved on behalf of the applicant who is involved in S.T. No. 727 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Arjun), under section 302 IPC and S.T. No. 728 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Arjun), under Section 25 of Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2011 and Case Crime No. 197 of 2011, Police Station- Kairana, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2016. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is said to have fired shot on the deceased but the deceased died out of a single shot. He further argued that though the F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the deceased, who is the informant of this case, but there appears to be no independent eye witness of the occurrence. Moreover, from the statements of parents of the deceased, who were examined as prosecution witnesses, it appears that their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful one. The applicant is languishing in jail about five years.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is said to have fired shot at the deceased and one single shot was found on the person of deceased and it is a broad day light murder and the weapon of assault has also been recovered. The applicant has also been convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act by the trial court. The trial is at the verge of completion and if the applicant is released on bail, he would hamper the running of trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order,if there is no legal impediment.
Applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the trial Court concerned for its compliance.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for immediate compliance.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 JK Yadav