Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Meraj for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 517 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich, during trial. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Bail No. 7785 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged with considerable delay and the delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution.
It is next submitted that the instant case was based purely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances alleged against the applicant was not of definite character and was also not complete and, therefore, no conclusion of the guilt of applicant could be ascertained.
It is further submitted that the recovery, which has been alleged on the pointing of the applicant could not be used against the applicant, as there is no independent witness of the same and only on the basis of such illegal recovery applicant could not be convicted.
It is also submitted that the investigation in the instant case has not been done in right perspective and the investigating officer has failed to investigate the allegations of the F.I.R. fairly and has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant only on the basis of apprehension and suspicion. Applicant is in jail in this matter since 29.03.2016 and the trial of the case in the trial court is not moving at the desired pace and, therefore, the intention of the prosecution is to keep the applicant behind bars forever.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, It is evident that the deceased had been done to death in a most brutal and gruesome manner. The motive of the murder was illicit relationship of applicant with the wife of the deceased, who is also a co-accused in this case. The investigating officer during the course of investigation, has recorded the statement of witnesses Manglesh, who had seen the applicant carrying a 'bag and baggage' on his motorcycle towards the place where the dead body of the deceased was ultimately recovered. The investigating officer has also claimed to have effected the recovery of a 'hammer' and 'Gandasa' on the pointing of the applicant, which was allegedly used in the commission of the crime and also some mobile call detail records have also been obtained which shows the complicity of the applicant and co-accused Sangeeta in the crime.
A status report was also summoned from the trial court which shows that till today 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined and it could not be said that the trial is not moving at a required pace as on some occasions, in the presence of the prosecution witnesses cross-examination has not been done on behalf of the accused persons. The trial court has opined that 14 more prosecution witnesses are required to be testified and the conclusion of trial may take one more year.
Having regard to the fact, circumstances and the evidence/material collected by the investigating officer during investigation, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Thus, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Meraj is, hereby, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to make all out efforts to conclude the trial within one year without granting soft adjournments to either parties.
A copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial court for compliance.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Praveen