Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 945 of 2013 Appellant :- Devendra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Govind Saran Hajela,D.P.S. Chauhan,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Jag Narayan
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
(Order on Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 47840 of 2015)
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of appellant seeking his release on bail in S.T. No. 323 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2003, u/ss. 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kamalganj, District- Farrukhabad. The first bail application was rejected by the preceding Bench on 6.9.2014 on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has once again tried to reopen the merits of the case. He has tried to point out the longer period of detention and has submitted that since rejection of earlier bail application sufficient period has elapsed yet the appeal has not been heard and, therefore, on the ground of longer detention appellant may be released on bail.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Perusal of the earlier bail rejection order shows that the merits of the case have been dealt with at a sufficient length and the Court had looked into all relevant aspects of the case which were necessary to decide the bail. The merits of the case cannot be re-looked time and again because some more period has elapsed since rejection of earlier bail application. But on the insistent request of learned counsel for the appellant the Court has once again given a re-look to the merits of the case but it does not find any good reason to take a different view on merits of the case even now. There are ample clinching evidences available against the appellant which completely corroborate the ocular version. The complicity in the crime is well corroborated by the medical evidence as the deceased was found to have received not only two gun shot wounds but also two incised wounds. The severity of both the incised wounds can be visualized by the very fact that as a result of these two cut wounds temporal bone, zygomatic bone, occipital bone were all found fractured. The firearm shot has also hit the deceased on the face and had gone through and through causing fracture of mandible and maxillae bones. The other firearm wound was on the middle of the the chest causing excessive damage to lungs and spleen. Incised wounds were also found on the body. A number of assailants participated in the occurrence with their respective weapons and it is not a case of hit and run. This is also not a case where the incident would have happened on the spur of moment. The manner of assault and injuries inflicted on the deceased show pre-determination of mind. Submissions as have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant can be at the most appreciated at the time of final hearing of appeal only and for the purpose of bail, learned counsel for the appellant has not succeeded to establish even a prima facie case in his favour. We do not find any good ground at this stage on the basis of which the impugned judgment may be castigated. This is true that sometimes this Court leans in favour of the accused particularly in a matter of longer detention but the detention period can not be applied as a straightjacket formula in all cases without paying due regard to the merits of the case. In the matter of such gravity where there is overwhelming evidence available against the appellant and there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to castigate the impugned judgment or its reasoning and where the accused fails to establish even a prima faice case in his favour, the period of detention alone does not appear to be a good ground on the basis of which the appellant may be released on bail. This is much more so because this Court is having all intentions to hear the appeal finally but counsel for the appellant does not appear to be keen to get the hearing of the appeal expedited. If the appellant or his counsel desires and has any inclination to get the hearing of appeal expedited, we are not at all disinclined to hear this appeal on merits. This is not a case in which the appeal is pending because of any disinclination on the part of the Court to hear it.
The second prayer for bail of the appellant, therefore, stands rejected.
Office is directed to prepare paper book and list this appeal for final hearing in regular Course.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 R