High Court · 2025

This is the third bail application. The first bail application was rejected

1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, appears through V.C. 2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned AAG along with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State. 3. 4. by a well reasoned order on 13.01.2022. Subsequent thereto, the second bail 5. application was moved, but the same was dismissed in non-prosecution. 6. Now the third bail application has been moved on the ground that the present applicant jail since languishing 26.10.2020, except this, no fresh ground has been taken. 7. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 14.10.2020 bearing FIR No.0308 of 2020, Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Section 302, 394, 411 and 376-D of IPC. 8. As per the FIR, a written complaint was submitted by the complainant that his aged parents live in J-269 Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar and on 13.10.2020, he called his parents several times, but they did not pick up the phone and then his sister contact, Hardiwar, Control Room, and, thereafter, he came to know from the neighbours as well some unknown miscreants entered in his home and have murdered both of them. 9. After reaching in the house, they the police found that the LED installed in their house and other belongings and cash were also looted. Thereafter, the applicant was from Khatoli District Mujaffar arrested Nagar in U.P on 26.10.2020 along with motor cycle and on his instance, the looted LED TV, three hand watches and some cash were also recovered. Thereafter, on his disclosure, the another co-accused, namely, Satyender alias Dharmendra came into light and he was also arrested on 27.10.2020 and cash was also recovered from him. 10. It was also come into light during investigation that the co-accused Satyendra alias Dharmendra was living as a tenant near the house of the deceased and he usually visits the deceased house and got their confidence, and, thereafter, the co- accused Satyendra planned with applicant to commit the aforesaid crime. On completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed and the investigation reveals that before commission of crime the rape was also committed to the deceased lady. The statement was recorded of the applicant as well as the other witnesses and after collecting all credible evidences, the charge-sheet has been filed. 11. The record of the first bail application and the second bail application is also placed before this Court and tagged with the instant third bail application and I have perused the earlier counter-affidavit of the in which the charge-sheet prosecution, along with the statement of the Doctor and the post mortem report, are also enclosed. 12. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it reveals that there are as many as 40 prosecution-witnesses and though most of the prosecution witnesses are the police officials, but there are other prosecution suffered applicant witnesses. 13. It has been informed to this Court that up till date, 17 prosecution-witnesses have been examined. 14. It is also contended by Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant incarceration and he is married person having children, and, furthermore, out of total 40 prosecution-witnesses, up till date, only 17 witnesses have been examined, therefore, taking into consideration that the applicant suffered long incarceration, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 15. On the other side, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned AAG vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the offence as committed is nothing but appears to be day light murder of two persons that too after commission of rape and loot, and, therefore, keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve for bail. Apart from this, she also argued that the applicant is a resident of District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. and in such an eventuality, when most of the star- witnesses have already been examined, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail, otherwise it will frustrate the trial. 16. She also pointed out that both the deceased were brutally murdered and after commission of this crime, and both the accused persons ran away and were arrested from Muzaffar Nagar in U.P. 17. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt also submits that keeping in view of the fact that there is a brutal murder of the two aged persons in day light and both the accused persons, the trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial. 18. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the records of the earlier two bail applications along with counter-affidavit of the prosecution and the argument as advanced by Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned AAG, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail particularly, when no fresh ground has been taken in the third bail application except that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2020. 19. Accordingly, the third bail application is dismissed. 20. Admittedly, after collecting credible evidences, the charge-sheet has been filed and up till date, 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible keeping in view of the fact that remaining prosecution-witnesses are police officials and make all possible efforts examination without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the prosecution-witnesses. 21. The entire exercise for expediting the trial be concluded positively within six months from today on its own merit without being influenced with the observations as made above. R.Bisht

24.07.2025 (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)