Court No. - 38
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24190 of 2020 Applicant :- Harish Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Saxena
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri Ankit Srivastav, learned AGA for the State.
2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application had been rejected by order dated 17.12.2019, wherein it was observed :-
"7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, the prosecution story is found to be wholly consistent with the case diary material. The offence alleged is quite grave and the manner in which the victim was found lying in a hotel abandoned by the present applicant with whom she was having prior relationship, the applicant does not warrant any indulgence.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
9. However, keeping in mind the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the trial court shall make efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any undue or long adjournment to either parties, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C."
3. At present, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the trial two witnesses namely - the parents of the victim girl have already been examined. The victim herself has lost her faculty of speech and that her evidence may not recorded. Thus, it has been submitted that there is no chance of the applicant now intimidating any of the witness as may prejudice the outcome of the trial. The applicant is stated to have remained confined for more than one and half year and there is no hope of earlier conclusion of the trial as other witnesses remain to be examined. Thus, the applicant prays that he may be enlarged on bail though on heavy surety.
4. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for the informant. It has been submitted by the State that about five witnesses of fact remain to be examined and in any case, looking at the grave nature of the offence alleged, with respect to which evidence is available in the shape of video recording and other case diary material, at present, no indulgence may be granted to the applicant.
5. Similar submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for the informant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in view of observations made in the earlier order dated 17.12.2019 while rejecting the first bail application, no fresh ground has been made out for grant of bail, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
8. Though the trial was expected to have been concluded by now, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the last one year has been particularly difficult for all including the Courts which have struggled to attain normal functioning in view of the spread of the pandemic Covid-19. Thus, it is expected that the learned court below shall make all efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the end of this year.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Abhilash