Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10189 of 2018 Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This fourth bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 326 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302,34 I.P.C.and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/12 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot. The first bail application was rejected by another Bench of the High Court on 20.5.2013 in non-prosecution while the second and third bail applications were rejected by this Court on 11.9.2015 and 25.8.2017 respectively on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has once again tried to reiterate the merits of the case. The period of detention of the applicant has also been pointed out as one of the grounds to release the applicant on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
This is a case in which as many as seven persons have been murdered. Merits of the case have also been gone into by the Court and it was not found fit case where the accused-applicant should be released on bail. Merits of the case cannot be looked or relooked into again and again. So far as the period of detention is concerned, in a matter of such gravity where such ghastly criminality is involved in the matter and in the matter of such a grisly grievous crime the period of detention alone does not appear to constitute a legitimate ground to release the applicant on bail on that basis alone. Moreover, it has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as many as 21 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The matter is already within the realm of the trial court now and the accused should get the final verdict with regard to his innocence or guilt from the trial court itself on the basis of thorough appreciation of evidence produced in the trial. Weighing the evidence, analysing the testimonial worth of witnesses and thereby making a judicial assessment of the same can more appropriately be done by the trial court. Going into the intricate details and the subtle appreciation of facts at this stage when the trial is already progressing, are all matters relating to trial. Any order passed by this Court on merits after assessing the testimonies of prosecution witnesses produced in the trial court might seriously impair the independent dispassionate assessment of the trial court. This Court, therefore, abstains to pass any detailed order on the point of bail on that basis at this stage of the trial, lest it may cause prejudice to either side. Apart from this in a matter where the delinquents of such nature are involved who are facing the charge of accumulating men on such massive scale. It does not appear prudent that they should be let loose as in that situation the prospects of a fair trial shall be seriously jeopardized under the fear of such delinquents. This Court does not see any sufficient fresh ground which may persuade this Court to allow this fourth bail application .
In the aforesaid background, the fourth bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.9.2018 CPP/-