Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46882 of 2021 Applicant :- Durgpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 310 of 2019, under sections 302, 307, 323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Goverdhan, district-Mathura, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
The FIR of the incident was lodged by the son of the deceased and it was mentioned in the FIR that father of the complainant Jhamman Chaudhary (deceased) was getting his boundary wall constructed and complainant and his cousin brother Naveen Chaudhary was also present there, then the present accused along with other co-accused named in the FIR came and started abusing them and directed to stop the construction work and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- in case they wanted to raise construction. Thereafter the father of the complainant was beaten up by the present accused and other co-accused and in the meantime, the present accused made fire upon his father, which hit him in his chest and he died.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon. Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. as His Lordship was then vide order dated 5.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6417 of 2020. The only new ground on which the the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial, vide this application is that the applicant is languishing in jail for the last three and half years and in the trial court even the charge has not been framed against him. Further submission is that the applicant is suffering from acute renal disease, which is evident from order sheet of trial court dated 16.2.2021, which is annexed at page no. 28 of the paper book. He lastly submits that applicant's trial has not concluded till date and as such he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused is being treated at government expenditure for his ailment. He also submits that the accused is having criminal history of two other cases, hence is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage but directs the jail authorities to provide proper treatment to him at the state expenses and the trial court is directed to frame charge and trial be concluded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to aforesaid direction, this bail application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Faridul