Heard Shri Naved Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2017 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of the present case within 8 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order which has not been concluded as yet, hence this second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant.
The new ground which has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on two grounds, first, the petitioner is the main shooter and secondly, co-accused Jai Prakash Singh has fired shot at the eye-witness Lal Sahab Yadav. It has been further mentioned that the case which was registered against Jai Prakash Singh, final report was submitted and his bail was cancelled, but subsequently his bail was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
He further submitted that so far as the allegation on the applicant of being the main shooter is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the informant Amit Kumar Yadav being recorded by the trial Court, which is annexed as Annexure no. SA7 to the supplementary affidavit at page 52, and in the said examination in chief he has stated that all the co-accused persons have assaulted the deceased, on account of which the shot hit on his jaws and he succumbed to his injuries. He further submitted that cross examination was deferred and the said witness was again called and his examination in chief was again recorded, which was not permissible under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, and in which he stated that it was the shot of the applicant which hit the deceased, thus it was incorrect on the part of the trial Court to re-call the witness again and record his examination in chief again and the prosecution has tried to pull up the lacuna of the said witness, hence the applicant may be released on bail, who is in jail since 07.12.2015.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that trial is at the verge of its completion and the statement of Investigating Officer is on record and statement of only one formal witness is left to be recorded.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial is on the verge of its completion, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Santosh Kumar Singh alias Pintoo Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 362 of 2015 under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, police station Aashpur, Devsara, District Pratapgarh.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a further period of two months on a day to day basis from the date of production of a computerized copy of this order.
The applicant shall file a copy of this order before the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
(Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Arnima