Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9000 of 2018 Applicant :- Rohit Rana Alias Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No.687 of 2014, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Indirapuram, District-Ghaziabad.
Though this is a second bail application but the earlier one was rejected virtually in non prosecution as the earlier order was passed by this Court in the absence of counsel as the counsel for certain reasons could not avail the opportunity to address the Court and the Court, while rejecting the earlier bail application, had observed that in case second bail application is moved, the same may be considered on merits unprejudiced by the earlier order of rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Counsel for the applicant has been fair enough to concede that the trial of the case has already commenced and a number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined in the trial court. Counsel for the applicant has tried to touch upon the prosecution evidence given in the court in order to show that a case for bail is made out on that basis. The period of detention of the applicant has also been pointed out.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
After considering the submissions made at the Bar and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that when the trial is already in progress, it shall not be proper to give any finding or pass any order on merits of the case on the basis of the statements given in the court. The matter is already within the realm of the trial court now and the accused should get the final verdict with regard to his innocence or guilt from the trial court itself on the basis of thorough appreciation of evidence produced in the trial. Weighing the evidence, analysing the testimony and worth of witnesses and thereby making a judicial assessment of the same can more appropriately be done by the trial court. Going into the intricate details and the subtle appreciation of facts at this stage when the trial is already progressing, are all matters relating to trial. Any finding or order passed by this Court on merits after assessing the testimonies of prosecution witnesses produced in the trial court might seriously impair the independent dispassionate assessment of the trial court. This Court, therefore, abstains to pass any detailed order on merits on the point of bail at this stage of the trial, lest it may cause prejudice to either side. Suffice it to say that the case diary and other record disclose enough material to make out prima facie case against the accused and there is enough material to substantiate the charge.
In a case of this gravity along with the nature of evidence which is available on record against applicant, the detention of the applicant can also not be said to be so long drawn out which may constitute a legitimate ground enough to set him at liberty or may persuade the Court to grant him bail on that basis.
In the aforesaid background, looking to the gravity of offence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially keeping in view the fact that the trial has already started, the second bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 M. Kumar