Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 277 of 2017 Applicant :- Pawan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, for the applicant; and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No.469 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur with a prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The first bail application No.6083 of 2016 was rejected by order dated 29.02.2016 upon noticing that role of firing at the deceased was attributed to the applicant and co-accused Sonu and that there appeared gun shot wounds on the body of the deceased.
A perusal of the bail rejecting order dated 29.02.2016 would reveal that at the time of time of pressing the first bail application the argument advanced from the side of the applicant was that two gun shots were fired at the deceased but the postmortem report suggests three injuries which made the prosecution case in conflict with the medical evidence. The court, after considering said submission, had rejected the bail application.
Sri Vinay Saran has pressed this second bail application by inviting attention of the Court to the admission slip, which has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit. According to him, the admission slip suggests that there was a single gun shot injury which travelled from the front to the back. It has been submitted that if there had been a single gun shot wound then a case for bail is made out because then it becomes doubtful as to who had fired at the deceased, particularly, when more than one person have been implicated.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the admission slip does not disclose that the fire arm injury was travelling from front of chest to back but suggests that there were fire arm injuries at the front as well as the back with bleeding and with hypotension, therefore there is no conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in this second bail application. The bail application is rejected. The trial court shall endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably, within next six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned through fax as well as ordinary mode within one week from today.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 AKShukla/-