Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34424 of 2019 Applicant :- Gaurav @ Hanuman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Ladlee Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely Gaurav @ Hanuman and Banti alleging that on 18.9.2015 at 1 p.m. they shot fire at Bhagwan Singh, he received two gun shot injuries, resultantly died. Countrymade pistols with cartridge used in this crime were recovered from each accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. So-called recovery was falsely planted by the police to show his good work. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future due to heavy workload in trial court. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 17.11.2015 (more than three year and nine months) having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant killed the deceased by shot fire. Countrymade pistol with cartridge used in the crime was recovered at the pointing out of applicant. Trial is going on. Offence is grievous in nature. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the second bail application of applicant Gaurav @ Hanuman involved in Case Crime No. 868 of 2015, under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Highway, District Mathura is hereby rejected at this stage.
It is expected from the court concerned to decide the case expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to day basis, if there is no legal impediment. District Judge, Mathura is directed to monitor the case in the monthly meeting of Monitoring Cell.
S.S.P./S.P., Mathura and District Magistrate, Mathura are directed to ensure presence of witnesses on summoning before the court concerned.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order through FAX, e-mail and speed post within three days from today to S.S.P./S.P., Mathura & District Magistrate, Mathura and court concerned for necessary compliance.
The court concerned is directed to send a detailed report after every three months showing the reason therein why the case is not being decided, which shall be kept on record.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019//A. Singh