Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41205 of 2017 Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Two supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant be taken on record.
This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Narendra who is involved in Case Crime No. 167 of 2011, (S. T. No. 738 of 2011), under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Bareilly. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2016 Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.2.2011 and till date the trial has not been concluded. It has further been submitted that in this case N.B.W. has been issued against the investigating officer but he has not turned up. It has further been submitted that as per ballistic report the empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence has not been found to be used by country made pistol recovered from the possession of the applicant. It has further been submitted that P.W. 2 Yogendra Prasad in his cross examination has stated that he has not seen the applicant on the spot. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report. P.W. 1 Praveen Kumar, who is informant and brother of the deceased is eye witness of the alleged incident and he has supported the prosecution version. In the statement of P.W. 1 Praveen Kumar it has come that the applicant and other co-accused fired upon the deceased due to which he died. It has further been submitted that during the trial the statements of witnesses of the fact has been recorded and the case has been fixed for recording the statement of investigating officer. It has further been submitted that from the record it is established that the applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Narendra is hereby refused and the second bail application of the applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018/A.