Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39908 of 2018 Applicant :- Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Vaishya,Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged after inordinate delay of one month on 3.6.2012 at 7:45 p.m. under Section 364A I.P.C. Raj Kumar, the brother of first informant Anil Kumar left home on 2.5.2012 and did not return upon which search was made and on 2.6.2012 he found an envelop of wedding card within his boundary wall containing a letter demanding a ransom money of Rs.30 Lakhs with threat of his life in case of any information to Police and since he is unable to make arrangements of Rs.30 Lakhs so necessary action be taken against the miscreants; that it is alleged that the same day at about 11:00 p.m. co-accused Rajesh and Pooran were arrested who disclosed that the abducted person is in their possession and is in custody of Jai Singh, Shiv Singh, Babloo (applicant) and Khilaune and taken the Police party to the place where the abducted person was confined and upon their reaching at the place about 1/2 Km. in the Bihad firstly they heard noise of 4-5 fires and one of the miscreants shouted that Police has arrived, cause death of kidnapped person and also attempted on the life of Police party and the Police party managed to catch hold of one miscreant Babloo, the applicant from the bushes with 315 bore country- made riffle with an empty cartridge in the barrel and the kidnapped person Raj Kumar was found dead at some distance; that applicant allegedly disclosed that Jai Singh caused death of the deceased; that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant, who has been picked from his home; that the applicant did neither kidnap deceased nor make any demand of ransom money nor cause any fatal injury to him; that the charges were framed against the applicant on 1.4.2013 but trial has not been concluded as yet and is pending for cross examination of P.W.-3 Sanjeev Kumar, who is not turning up since last several dates; that co-accused Pooran Singh Lodhi has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35326 of 2013, copy filed at Annexure No.5; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 18.6.2012.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant was actively involved and participated in the kidnapping of deceased Raj Kumar; that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant; that the copy of order-sheet filed by applicant shows that trial is in progress and after recording the statements of P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 the statement of Sanjeev Kumar, P.W.-3 was recorded on 3.1.2017 but on that day he was not cross-examined rather adjournment was moved on behalf of the accused and case was adjourned; that again on 31.7.2017 when the witness turned up, adjournment was moved on behalf of the accused which was again allowed in the interest of justice at a cost of Rs.300/-; that the witness P.W.3 again appeared on 28.8.2017 but he was partly cross examined and cross examination was not concluded; that the copy of order-sheet shows that though witness P.W.-3 did not turn up on some dates and on most of the dates the Presiding Officer was on leave; that whenever Sanjeev Kumar, P.W.-3 appeared, accused persons sought adjournment; that the conduct of accused persons in seeking adjournment on arrival of witness shows that they want to win over the prosecution witnesses and themselves are delaying disposal of trial; that the case of co-accused Pooran Singh Lodhi is distinguishable from the applicant; that the applicant if released, shall misuse the liberty of bail and shall tamper the prosecution witnesses.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Babloo in S.T. No.57 of 2012 (Babloo Vs. State of U.P.), Case Crime No.842 of 2012, under Sections 364A, 302 & 109 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jalaun at Orai, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if possible within one year.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Kpy