Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10424 of 2021 Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The earlier two bail application Nos. 8783 of 2017 and 2869 of 2018 have been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.03.2017 and 14.05.2018.
By means of this third application, applicant-Shamshad Ahmad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 249 of 2014, under sections 307, 376 IPC, police station Bahariya, district Allahabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
Perusal of both the bail orders of the applicant, I find that in the order dated 28.03.2017, it has been observed by the Court that injuries that have been inflicted upon the victim, which shows not less than ten incised wounds inflicted upon the lady. She has also narrated the history as to how she was subjected to extreme atrocities by the accused-applicant, which included commission of rape against her will. The second bail application of the applicant was pressed on the ground of detention period of the applicant in jail, on which the Court has observed that in the matter like this, the period of detention cannot be said to be so long drawn, which by itself may constitute any good ground to release the accused on bail on that basis alone.
The instant third bail application has been pressed mainly on the ground that the applicant has been in jail since 29.09.2014 and trial has not yet been concluded. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in case, the is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the offence is heinous in nature and there is no new ground in the bail application and considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
After having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any new and good ground to persuade myself to allow the instant third bail application of the applicant.
Accordingly, the third bail application is rejected.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, considering the detention period of the applicant in jail, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
However, it is clarified that the observation, if any, made herein above shall be 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 :- 24.9.2021 Sazia