Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39958 of 2018 Applicant :- Laxman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This third bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 364, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sector-58 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 26.11.2015 in non prosecution while the second bail application was also rejected by this Court on 4.7.2016 in absence of applicant's counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has been fair enough to admit that the trial has already reached at advanced stage and a substantial part of evidence has already been produced in the court. Counsel has tried to dwell upon the testimony of the witnesses given in the court and has submitted that the applicant may be released on bail on that basis. The period of detention of the applicant has also been pointed out.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
After considering the submissions made at the Bar and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that in a case of this nature when the first bail application has already been rejected on merits earlier and the trial is already in progress, it shall not be proper to pass any order on merits of the case again on the basis of the statements given in the court. 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. Suffice it to say that the record discloses enough material to make out prima facie case against the accused and there is enough material to substantiate the charge.
In a case of this gravity along with the nature of evidence which is available on record against applicant, the detention of the applicant can also not be said to be so long drawn out which may constitute a legitimate ground enough to set him at liberty or may persuade the Court to grant him bail on that basis.
In the aforesaid background, the third bail application also stands rejected.
However, it is expected that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
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 :- 26.7.2019 Naresh