Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43476 of 2015 Applicant :- Balendar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Parbind Kumar Tripathi,Hausila Prasad,Ram Ker Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 685 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the missing report and after one month of the alleged incident, the name of the applicant came into light in the statement of the first informant. It is further contended that the iron rod and the skeleton has been recovered on the pointing of the applicant, when in fact no recovery has been made from the pointing of the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel further contended that no D.N.A. report of skeleton has not been received from the Forensic Lab. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history. It is lastly contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 28.08.2014.
Learned A.G.A. contends that skeleton and the iron rod has been recovered from the pointing of the applicant and reference has been drawn to para 10 of the counter affidavit and has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, the trial Judge is directed to consider and conclude the trial of the aforesaid case crime, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 S.Ali