Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19748 of 2018 Applicant :- Bani Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Vishnu Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pushkar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishnu Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Bani Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 109 of 2016, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Tappal, District - Aligarh, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of double murder and other offences, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 24.03.2016, the applicant is in confinement since 27.10.2016;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case she is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, trial has commenced and there is no hope for early conclusion of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no specific role had been assigned to the applicant in the FIR and clearly by making improvement, the applicant was implicated at the stage of recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Next, it has been submitted Section 174 Cr.P.C. had been violated inasmuch as no inquest had been carried out immediately. Also, it has been submitted that no blood had been found from the site of occurrence as per the site plan. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
5. Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned AGA would submit that the applicant has been named in the FIR. Referring to the statement of injured witness, it has been submitted that two persons namely the applicant and Harendra had been assigned the role of causing death using fire arm. Thus, specific role has been assigned to the applicant which is not inconsistent with the FIR narration. Other injuries have also been received by the other injured witness, which are also consistent with the aforesaid case of the prosecution. Also, it cannot be lost sight of that the charge sheet was submitted on 09.09.2018 and more than a year has passed since then, it is expected that the trial would have commenced.
6. In view of the above, in the first place, no ground is made out for bail and second, no order may be passed as may influence the final outcome of the trial.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected with a direction to the learned court below to make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Abhilash