Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7120 of 2018 Applicant :- Billoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2016 u/s 147,148,149,336,504,506,302 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act PS Lohamandi District Agra. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2017.
I have perused the first information report and earlier bail rejection order passed by this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 SP