Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 799 of 2014 Appellant :- Mahesh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Chaudhary,Rahul Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 08 of 2018.
This is the third bail application moved on behalf of appellant Awadhesh. The first and the second bail applications were rejected by the earlier Bench on 1.4.2014 and 5.2.2016 respectively on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
It has been submitted that some other proceeding was pending regarding Gangsters Act and plea of juvenility was taken and a favourable finding was also given in favour of the appellant and therefore, in this matter also the appellant may be released on bail after holding him juvenile in conflict with law.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The perusal of the earlier bail rejection orders reveals that the preceding Bench has already gone through the record and has passed the orders on the merits of the case and it was not found to be a fit case where the accused could be released on bail. However, on the persuasive request of the counsel, this Court has once again given a second look to the merits of the case. But again Court feels constrained and deems it proper to adhere to its earlier view and does not find it a fit case to release the applicant-appellant on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has already been gone into and there is no such good fresh ground which may persuade the Court to take a different view. This is a case in which blatant violence has been displayed by the accused persons and the role played by the appellant is not ancillary as he was an active assailant along with co-accused persons and the attack which was purported by him and co- accused has caused the death of two innocent persons and has also resulted in grievous injuries to the injured-victims. The record also shows that it was a case in which there was prior meeting of minds and the incident took place in furtherance of common intentions of the accused persons. Appellant Awadhesh was armed with knife which he used in most violent manner. The injuries on the victim Rajiv show not less than four incised wounds. Apart from this, the postmortem report of Ashutosh also reveals that he too incurred a cut wound which was chest cavity deep obviously caused by the knife wielded by Awadhesh causing grievous internal damage puncturing the lung. The chest cavity contained three litres of blood, which resulted in the death of Ashutosh. The firearm used by other co- accused also caused serious injuries to victim Dipendra and Jitendra and as a result of the same the deceased Jitendra died. The evidence adduced in the Court is of unimpeachable character and the counsel for the appellants has simply failed to point out any such infirmity in the judgement on the basis of which the same may be castigated. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish even a prima facie case in favour of the appellant and this Court also does not see any good ground to release the appellant on bail. The accused persons have been convicted for killing two persons and causing injuries to others and the sentence awarded cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate and the sentence awarded could not have been less than to it.
Ordinarily this Court tends to lean liberally in favour of the accused in matters of prolonged detention, but the period of detention alone cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula in all cases regard being had to the nature of crime, the gravity of offence, the pertaining circumstances and quality of judgement.
In view of the seriousness of the offence and the sufficiency of evidence and unimpeachable quality of judgement, this Court does not find any good ground to release the appellant on bail only on the ground of detention. So far as plea of juvenility is concerned, this Court does not find any good reason to release the appellant on bail even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that some findings in that regard may have been recorded by other court in relation of some other proceedings. This Court also perceives probability that the release of this appellant will expose him to mix up with unruly criminal delinquents and the release is likely to be against the interest of society and also against his own interest. In all likelihood there are ample probabilities for a person of such delinquent leanings that he is likely to get mixed up with unruly criminals and loosing his life in the world of crime. The circumstances of the case reveal the criminal psyche because of which he has not shown any qualms even in his early age and indulged in such kind of bloody violence of disproportionate dimensions.
Here it may be very pertinent to observe that this Court is open and feels inclined to hear this appeal finally. If the counsel has any desire or any inclination to have final hearing in the matter he can always take steps to get the appeal expedited. The Court has expressed its inclination and openness to have final hearing in the matter. But ironically enough there appears reluctance on the part of counsel in this regard whose keenness appears to be confined only with regard to procurement of bail. It is certainly not a matter where it may be said that as there is no likelihood of early hearing or conclusion of this appeal therefore, the accused should be released on the ground of longer detention. It is indeed disappointing to see this unhealthy trend insidiously creeping in and gaining ground that complete reluctance to argue the appeal finally is being displayed at the bar which in its turn contributes not only to the prolongation of detention period of accused but also to the rise of staggering pendency of appeals. We cannot lend our countenance to such kind of reluctance on the part of appellant or his legal representative nor can we allow the same to be used as a contrivance to procure bail in the name of prolixity of detention period to which they themselves are contributory.
The third bail application therefore also stands rejected.
Office is directed to prepare paper book and list for hearing in ordinary course.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018/Faridul