Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19311 of 2017 Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Pandey
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA for the State.
This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant- Ram Bahadur in Case Crime No.119 of 2006, under Sections 302, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Tharwai, District Allahabad.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is in jail since 28.10.2006, that is to say, eleven and a half year past in jail; that the trial is not proceeding despite repeated directions issued by this Court to conclude the trial on a time bound basis, one such direction being made vide order dated 25.08.2009 in Application u/s 482 No. 18097 of 2009. It has further been argued that role of wielding a Lathi has been assigned to the applicant as would be evident from a perusal of Annexure RA-2 to the first bail application, being a statement of eye witness Rajendra Prasad Tiwari. It has been further been argued that co-accused Pappu Yadav compared to whom the applicant's case stands on a better footing has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3083/2007.
Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi has opposed the prayer for bail in one voice. It is submitted that this is a third bail application the second being rejected by an order dated 17.01.2008. It is submitted that the plea of parity based on the case of Pappu Yadav and the unreliable evidence of a third eye witness Rajendra Prasad Tiwari assigning a role of Lathi to the applicant was available when the second bail application was rejected. The same plea cannot be advanced which was available to the applicant at the time when the second bail application was rejected. It is further argued that it is a heinous offence where the applicant Ram Bahadur is said to be armed with a country made pistol and he along with co-accused Lallu Yadav, Bechu Lal Yadav and Pappu Yadav have opened indiscriminate fire killing three persons, that is to say, Vishnu Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Hari Shanker Tiwari besides causing fire arm injury to Bal Govind.
In the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA it is absolutely not a case where bail can be granted, the case being one of a triple murder and a gruesome one.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that 11 and a half years in jail is a long time and that in itself is a ground to be considered which is now available, the second bail application having been rejected in the year 2008, that is to say, more than 10 years ago with no progress in the trial.
This aspect indeed is disconcerting. This Court as noticed has issued more than one directions, reference to one has already been made. There is another direction in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27642/2014 where this Court while rejecting the bail application of co-accused Lallu Yadav directed the trial court to conclude trial within a period of three months from the date production of a certified copy of the order. This order was passed on 11.09.2014 and the trial is still pending. There is also mention with regard of some evidence of witnesses going missing which makes it all the more serious. The applicant on one hand cannot be permitted to capitalize on the loss of record or the delay itself but at the same time the trial court also cannot be permitted to linger on the trial much to the prejudice of the applicant's right to speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is a 65 years old man and 11 and a half years have passed in jail. This Court does not find any merit in this third bail application.
Accordingly, this third bail application stands rejected.
However, looking to the circumstances noticed hereinabove, the Trial Court, wherever the trial may be pending for the time being, is not directed to proceed with the trial on a day to day basis and conclude the same without fail within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
A copy of this order will be certified to the Trial Court concerned through the Sessions Judge, Allahabad forthwith by the office.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Imroz