Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26135 of 2021 Applicant :- Raghvendra @ Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District Etah during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application was rejected on 02.09.2020 by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J, subsequently, this case came before this Court by nomination of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 11.08.2021.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R. the role of firing has been assigned to the applicant as a result there of one Amarjeet received injury in the abdomen. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the trial has commenced and the informant, Nandkishor, P.W.01 has supported the prosecution version, subsequently, the statement of the injured Amarjeet, P.W.02 was recorded, who has not supported the prosecution version and stated that the applicant has not fired upon him instead some unknown person has fired upon him as a result there of injuries have been caused. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2020 having no criminal history as stated in paragraph no.13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injury has been duly explained in the F.I.R. itself, which is a gun shot injury in the abdomen and specific role of firing has been assigned to the applicant. He further submits that the informant has supported the prosecution version as is apparent from his statements. In these circumstances there is no fresh ground to allow this second bail application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of informant in which he has supported the prosecution version and without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The second bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 S.P.