Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56835 of 2019 Applicant :- Rahul Keshri Alias Pullu Kesari Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Muktesh Singh,Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Prasad
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
3. This is the second bail application. Earlier, the first bail application was rejected by means of the order dated 18.11.2019. It is quoted below :
"1. Second supplementary affidavit filed today. Also, State has filed counter affidavit. Both affidavits are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
3. By means of this application, the applicant Rahul Keshri @ Pullu Kesari who is involved in Case Crime No.342 of 2019, under Sections 307, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Meza, District-Prayagraj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged against unknown assailants and no evidence has been collected during investigation to implicate the present applicant with the occurrence. Relying solely on the confessional statement of the co-accused, the informant has changed his stand and made false allegation against the applicant. All the other accused have been granted bail. Hence, parity is also being claimed.
5. The aforesaid contentions have been resisted with vehemence. It has been submitted that though, it is true, the FIR was against unknown assailants, yet, during the investigation, the applicant's name surfaced as a result of the statement given by the co-
accused. At that stage, the applicant hurled out threat to the informant by making a phone call from his mobile number. The informant was thus threatened to withdraw from the criminal prosecution or face dire consequences. This incident has lead to institution of an FIR on 13.08.2019 with respect to the incident that took place on 09.08.2019. That matter is under investigation.
6. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history of eight cases, details of which have been given as follows:
"(a) Case Crime No.427 of 2014, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 392 IPC, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj.
(b) Case Crime No.206 of 2010, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(c) Case Crime No.253 of 2010, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(d) Case Crime No.205 of 2010, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(e) Case Crime No.226 of 2012, under Section 110-G Cr.P.C., Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(f) Case Crime No.123 of 2015, under Section 3 of U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(g) Case Crime No.661 of 2017, under Section 307, 302, 341 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj.
(h) Case Crime No.750 of 2019, under Sections 506, 507 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District Prayagraj."
7. While, the applicant would contend that he had been bailed out in all the aforesaid cases, the sections under which each of the aforesaid criminal case has been registered, reveals that they involve allegations of offence under the Arms Act as also under Section 307 IPC, besides other allegations.
8. Also, in case of grant of bail, it is an important condition to be observed by the accused concerned to neither tamper with the evidence nor to pressure his {sic or} intimidate prosecution witness.
9. In the present case allegation of intimidation of prosecution witness is already under investigation.
10. In view of the above, no good ground is made out. The present application is rejected at this stage. The applicant shall be at liberty to apply at the appropriate time and stage."
4. For the purpose of the present second bail application, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the stage of rejection of the first bail application, it had weighed with the Court that the applicant had practised criminal intimidation on the informant, leading to the lodging of the criminal case under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. However, during pendency of the second bail application, the applicant has already been granted bail in that case.
5. As to the other change of circumstance, it has been submitted that the applicant has remained confined for almost two years since 18.11.2019. However, the trial has not progressed any further. In light of the allegations made, it has been submitted that the applicant has already undergone detention for sufficiently long period of time and if the matter was to be looked at holistically, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant for any substantial offence. In fact, it has been again submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated, during the investigation solely on account of the confessional statement of the co-accused. Last, it has been again pointed out that the other co-accused against whom main allegation has been made, have already been enlarged on bail.
6. The bail application has been opposed by the learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant. While learned AGA has again pressed the criminal history of the applicant involving three cases lodged under Section-307 IPC, learned counsel for the informant would submit that the period of incarceration cannot give rise to a ground for grant of second bail. All the accused persons with whom parity is claimed by the present applicant, had been enlarged on bail before the first bail application of the present applicant came to be rejected, vide order dated 18.11.2019.
7. The grounds on which the second bail application may be considered, are quite clear. It may either be a change of facts or circumstance or such an event or law as may give rise to fresh grounds for grant of bail. The second bail application is not to be decided by way of a review of the earlier order. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced at that stage, it appears the first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected considering the criminal history of the applicant, the allegation of criminal intimidation made against the applicant and the material implicating the present applicant in the present case.
8. Looked in that light, the fact that the applicant may have been granted bail on the allegation of criminal intimidation may qualify as a change of circumstance yet, it may not be enough in itself to allow the present application. As to the criminal history of the applicant, there is no denial of the same. The fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in those cases and the further fact that in the present case, the applicant has remained confined for almost two years may weigh in the mind of the Court but at the same time in the context of the offence alleged, it cannot be said that the period of detention undergone is close to half of the minimum sentence. The submissions affecting the merits of the case as have been advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be considered at this pre-mature stage.
9. Accordingly, I do not find any ground made out for grant of bail in the present (second) bail application. It is rejected.
10. At the same time, the Court cannot remain unmindful of the fact that almost two years have passed and the trial has not moved a single pace. The said status is wholly unacceptable. While rejecting the bail, it is not Court's desire to curtail the liberty of under trial without any adjudication arising as to the alleged complicit in the offence. The right to a prompt trial is a well established right of the accused. Accordingly, it is provided that the learned court below will take up the present case with utmost expedition and to ensure that the stage of framing of charge may be completed within a period of two months from today, subject to the applicant placing a copy of this order before the learned court below within a period of two weeks from today.
11. In view of the delay already caused, the trial itself may be taken up on priority the present case such that the evidence of the crucial witnesses of fact may be recorded before the end of November, 2021.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Abhilash