Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3201 of 2013 Appellant :- Brijpal Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4 of 2018 This is a second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant in appeal seeking his release on bail who has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 2001, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2001, under Sections 323 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station-G.R.P., District-Bagpat. The first bail application was rejected by earlier Bench presided by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. and Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal, J. on 11.11.2013 on merit Learned counsel for the appellant has once again tried to reiterate the merits of the case and has also sought to argue as the appellant is in jail since 10.7.2013, he may be released on bail on the ground of detention only.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
Perusal of the earlier bail rejection order shows that the merits of the case have already been gone into by the Court and it was not found to be a fit case where the accused-appellant could be released on bail. The merits of the case cannot be looked and re- looked time and again just because some more period has been elapsed. But on the insistence of the counsel, we have once again given a second look to the merits, but we also find no good reason to take different view in the matter. than the one which has already been adopted by preceding division Bench. Moreover, we are inclined to hear the matter finally and decide the appeal and we have expressed our inclination to have final hearing of the appeal before the counsel. If the appellant or his counsel has any inclination to get the appeal finally decided, it must take steps to get it expedited. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bail ought to be granted where there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future. It all depends upon the inclination of the counsel. What is being observed these days commonly that the counsels are reluctant to argue the appeal finally and are interested only in bail. In fact, delaying the hearing is also a contrivance to prolong the period of detention and then to make capital out of the same in the form of release on bail. We do not appreciate this trend. At any rate looking to the gravity of offence, sufficiency of evidence and the impugned judgment being very reasonably pronounced, we do not see any good ground to release the appellant on bail.
Therefore, the second prayer for bail of the appellant-Brijpal stands rejected.
It may be clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order must not be construed to have any reflection upon the ultimate merits of the case and he is confined only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application.
(Order on Appeal)
Office is required to prepare the paper-book and list this appeal thereafter for hearing.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Mini