Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12647 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare,Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Shukla and Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 25 of 2018, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S. Jariya, District Hamirpur with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry as he was sitting Block Pramukh, Gohand on the date of incident. The F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged after inordinate delay after deliberation and consultation. In the F.I.R. vague allegation of firing on the deceased has been made against the applicant and his personal gunner Manoj, however, during investigation, in the statement the first informant and wife of the deceased have given different version by stating that infact firing was made by co-accused, gunner of the applicant Manoj and then he handed over Rifle to the applicant and both of them fled away from the place of incident. The post mortem report also indicates that there is only one gunshot wound of entry with corresponding exit wound and third injury in the nature of lacerated wound on the left wrist with blackening and tattooing, which cannot be said to have caused by Rifle. They have further submitted that the applicant does not have any arm license. They have next submitted that on an application moved by the informant against shoddy investigation conducted by local police, who had submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused on which cognizance has been taken, however, by the orders of Director General of CBCID dated 18.4.2017, matter has been directed for further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. In this behalf an application was moved before the District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 181 of 2018 by the Inspector, CBCID apprising the court that since the case has now been directed to be further investigated by the CBCID, therefore, permission in this behalf may be granted. It is argued that learned Judge has granted permission for further investigation vide order dated 24.12.2018 and also stayed the proceeding of S.T. No. 181 of 2018 during the pendency of investigation. It is argued that as the proceeding of session trial has been stayed by the Sessions Judge there is no early likelihood of conclusion of the trial, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. strongly opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in a broad day light incident, there is no delay in lodging F.I.R. as in the F.I.R. itself it is stated that the deceased in injured condition was shifted to the Hospital where he was declared dead. The incident took place on 22.2.2018 at 10.00 am and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 7.30 pm, which, by no stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be any unexplained delay. He has further submitted that on the application moved by the complainant being dissatisfied by the manner in which entire investigation was botched up by the local police, the investigation has been transferred to CBCID and in respect of which permission has been granted by the Sessions Judge. However, he has no authority of law to stay the proceeding of session trial merely because the investigation by CBCID has been transferred for further investigation, therefore, the applicant, who apparently appears to be an influential person if released on bail, shall certainly tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall prejudice the trial.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, first of all I am constrained to observe that District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur has exceeded in his jurisdiction to stay the proceeding of session trial merely on the basis that the investigation by CBCID is going on, there is no provisions of law that if the matter is referred for further investigation of the case in which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and after due committal same is pending before the session court, should remain pending so long as the investigation by CBCID is going on, which may take couple of years in submitting its report. The order passed by the Sessions Judge is highly deplorable.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. The Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the trial and decide the same in accordance with law.
The Sessions Judge, Hamirpur is also directed to submit an explanation as to under which provisions of law or any binding precedent, the proceeding of session trial for heinous offence has been stayed by him, within three weeks.
List this case on 28.8.2019 before this Court.
Office is directed to communicate the order to Sessions Judge, Hamirpur within 48 hours.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Dhirendra/