Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1682 of 2012 Appellant :- Mujiburahaman Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- M.H. Zaidi,Imran Mabood Khan,Sumit Goyal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
This is second bail application moved on behalf of appellant Mujiburahaman seeking his release on bail who has been convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.611 of 2008 (State vs. Mujiburahaman and another), arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2008, u/s 364, 302/34 and 201 I.P.C., P.S.-Mandi, District-Saharanpur. The First Bail Application has already been rejected on merits by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.4.2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has once again tried to argue the case on merits and the period of detention has also been pointed out.
Perusal of the earlier bail rejection order shows that merits of the case have already been gone into. The appellant is the main assailant at whose instance the dead body was also recovered. Though it is not required that the Court should look into merits once again yet the Court has given a second look to the entire evidence but the Court feels constrained to observe that it does not find any good reason to take different view of the matter than the one which has already taken by earlier Bench. Ordinarily this Court feels inclined in cases of longer detention to take a liberal view of the matter but the detention period alone cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula in all cases regardless of the nature of crime and its gravity. The gravity of the offence and the sufficiency of offence is such that the ground of detention alone cannot suffice to serve as a legitimate basis to allow the bail for that reason alone. In absence of any good fresh ground we do not find it fit to release the appellant on bail and therefore the second bail of the appellant stands rejected.
This Court is prepared to hear the final arguments and decide the appeal finally. If the appellant or his counsel has any inclination, he can always take steps to get the hearing expedited to argue the matter finally and get the appeal decided. This Court is not disinclined to hear it. It is not the case where there is no likelihood of early conclusion of appeal. Most of the contentions raised by learned counsel relate to the finer appreciation of evidence which can be done only at the time of final hearing.
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 :- 30.11.2018 Mohit Kushwaha