Aggrieved by the order of refusal of bail dated 12.8.2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, the applicant has preferred this bail application before this Court for consideration of prayer for bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2005, S.T. No.244 of 2008 under Sections 326, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh.
The background facts in nutshell are as follows;
The F.I.R. of the case was registered on 1.2.2005 at about 7.40 P.M. at Police Station Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh in respect of the incident which is alleged to have taken place on the same day at about 7.00 P.M. As per the prosecution case,on the aforesaid date and time the informant along with his brother was sitting in his purchune shop situate near the roadside village Giyapur which is in front of Village Bahlolpur turning. All of a sudden, the applicant as well as two others, namely,Sonu and Mangaru came near that shop and on exhortation of co-accused Sonu both the applicant and co- accused Mangaru hurled bombs upon the informant who anyhow managed to escape but Asharaf alias Sonu, one of the customers standing at the shop, had sustained serious injuries on his leg. The victim was medically examined at Azamgarh District Hospital on the same day and thereafter he was referred to B.H.U. Hospital, Varanasi for better treatment and management where he remained admitted till 24.2.2005. The applicant as well as aforesaid co- accused were named in the F.I.R. On account of which two other co-accused- persons surrendered before the court while applicant fled away from the judicial process and ultimately charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons on completion of the investigation under Sections 326, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act on 20.12.2005. Since the applicant remained absconding the trial of the other two accused persons was separated which concluded in their conviction vide judgement and order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Azamgarh. However, the courts below took various recourses permissible under the law for procuring and ensuring the presence of the applicant and ultimately he surrendered before the court on 20.3.2008 and now he is facing trial.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Submissions made by learned counsel for applicant is that the applicant is wholly innocent, has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and he has been working in private transport company at Ahmedabad, Gujrat since 1.1.2000 and had worked till 31.1.2008 and on account of his employment he was not aware of institution of aforesaid case and proceeding thereof against him and as soon as he came to know about it, he surrendered before the court concerned. She further submits that the applicant is a very poor person and has got no motive at all for participation in the alleged offence. In fact, he has been implicated in the alleged crime on account of enmity with the present village pradhan who has influenced local police due to political power. She has further argued that the applicant is in jail for more than two years and the trial has not commenced in the absence of the record which has been summoned by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4670 of 2008. She has further submitted that co-accused Mangaru Singh as well as Sonu Singh have been released on bail by this Court in aforesaid criminal appeal and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail at this stage. However, the bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. by contending that the applicant remained absconding for more than three years from judicial process, thus looking to his conduct, the prosecution is apprehensive of the fact that in case he is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from judicial process again and moreover, the trial has already commenced and substantially proceeded and it will not be proper for this Court to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on the record and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it will not be proper for this Court to release the applicant on bail. It is admitted position that sessions trial has commenced and substantially proceeded, thus it will not be proper at this stage to comment upon the nature of the evidence on the one way or the other. The dexterous litigant cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of his illegal design of impeding the course of justice by resorting to unscrupulous methodology. The prayer for bail of the applicant is, therefore, declined and the bail application is accordingly dismissed.
However, taking into account aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and that the case is old one of year 2001, the trial court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Both the parties are expected to cooperate in the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. The office is directed to send the copy of this order to the District and Sessions Judge/trial court for intimation and necessary compliance along with the trial court record which has been linked with the Criminal Appeal No.4670 of 2008 (Mangaru Singh and others Versus State of U.P.) and after conclusion of the trial in respect of the present applicant-Raja Singh alias Raj Kumar Singh aforesaid record be again transmitted to this Court which shall be kept on the record of Criminal Appeal No.4670 of 2008. Order Date :- 28.1.2010 MN/-