Halchal v. State of U.P.) for non prosecution

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. A compliance affidavit dated 05.5.2025 has been filed today in Court by learned A.G.A. which is taken on record.

4. On 07.1.2025 this Court passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18699 of 2021 (Halchal vs. State of U.P.) for non prosecution.

3. The second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 306 of 2022 (Halchal vs. State of U.P.).

4. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020. Fresh and new ground has been taken and pleaded in supplementary affidavit dated 15.04.2024. In its paragraph nos. 2 and 3 stated that the applicant is of unsound mind. A letter dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Superintendent District Jail, Mau address to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mau has been placed which is annexure-S.A-1 to the same.

5. The Court perused the same. The said order states that the accused was admitted in mental hospital, Varanasi on 06.01.2023 for treatment and he is still not all fit medical condition and his treatment is going on.

6. In order to appreciate the fact regarding the mental state of mind of the applicant, at the first instance, it would be appropriate that a report be called for from the C.M.O., Mau, who shall constitute a team of doctors including a doctor of neurological department dealing with such medical condition and give a report regarding mental condition of the applicant.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Mau and Superintendent District Jail, Mau shall ensure compliance of this order.

8. The examination of the applicant be done within three weeks and report be sent to this Court through C.J.M. concerned forthwith.

9. The District Judge concerned and the C.J.M. concerned shall also ensure the compliance of the order by the next date.

10. Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2025."

5. Office has placed on record a report received from the C.J.M., Mau through its report dated 4.4.2025, a perusal of the same goes to show that the report of Neurological Department has been submitted which is annexed with it. The Medical Officer (Neurology), Mental Hospital, Varanasi has reported that there is no mental illness of the applicant. The compliance affidavit of State has been placed in which annexure no. 1 is the minutes drawn by a team of 06 Members along with Chairman of Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, BHU, Varanasi, which states that the applicant has denied any prior history suggestive of any organic neurological disorder. However, MRI of brain has been recommended.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the applicant is not having any neurological and mental issue and is fit.

7. This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Halchal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 624 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Kaptanganj, District- Gorakhpur.

8. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on 18.11.2021. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.306 of 2022 was rejected by this Court on 05.4.2022.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020 and trial in the present case has not yet concluded and is proceeding at a very slow pace as only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and as such will take a lot of time in its conclusion. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-16 of the affidavit.

10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution and the second bail was dismissed on merits by this Court. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. He submits that he shall ensure that the witnesses appear in the trial regularly without any fail and the trial proceeds expeditiously.

11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on 18.11.2021. The same reads as under:- "No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State is present. The bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

12. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.306 of 2022 was rejected by this Court on 05.4.2022. The same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Babita Kumari, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Halchal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 624 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kopaganj, District Mau. The first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. lodged by Jay Prakash Ram the brother of the deceased/Prakash Ram, the present incident is an incident of sudden quarrel, after which the applicant is said to have assaulted the deceased with fawra due to which he received injury and died. It is argued that the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 20 and is in jail since 27.11.2020 as stated in para-21 of the affidavit. Per contra, learned State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation of his assaulting the deceased with fawra. There is a recovery of fawra on the pointing out of the applicant on 27.11.2020. It is argued that the deceased has received three injuries on his person which are fatal injuries. The cause of death as opined by the doctor is due to ante mortem injury. It is argued that there is repeated blows by the applicant upon the deceased and as such there was an intention to commit the said offence. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is role assigned to the applicant. There is an eye witness account of the incident. There is recovery of fawra which is alleged to have been used for murder of the deceased. The deceased has received three sharp edged injuries which shows that the blows were repeated. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

13. In so far as the mental illness of the applicant is concerned, there is no report showing any mental illness of the applicant. He was found to be fit mentally. The trial is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020.

14. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.

15. However, looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. A compliance affidavit dated 05.5.2025 has been filed today in Court by learned A.G.A. which is taken on record.

4. On 07.1.2025 this Court passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18699 of 2021 (Halchal vs. State of U.P.) for non prosecution.

3. The second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 306 of 2022 (Halchal vs. State of U.P.).

4. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020. Fresh and new ground has been taken and pleaded in supplementary affidavit dated 15.04.2024. In its paragraph nos. 2 and 3 stated that the applicant is of unsound mind. A letter dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Superintendent District Jail, Mau address to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mau has been placed which is annexure-S.A-1 to the same.

5. The Court perused the same. The said order states that the accused was admitted in mental hospital, Varanasi on 06.01.2023 for treatment and he is still not all fit medical condition and his treatment is going on.

6. In order to appreciate the fact regarding the mental state of mind of the applicant, at the first instance, it would be appropriate that a report be called for from the C.M.O., Mau, who shall constitute a team of doctors including a doctor of neurological department dealing with such medical condition and give a report regarding mental condition of the applicant.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Mau and Superintendent District Jail, Mau shall ensure compliance of this order.

8. The examination of the applicant be done within three weeks and report be sent to this Court through C.J.M. concerned forthwith.

9. The District Judge concerned and the C.J.M. concerned shall also ensure the compliance of the order by the next date.

10. Let the matter be listed on 21.02.2025."

5. Office has placed on record a report received from the C.J.M., Mau through its report dated 4.4.2025, a perusal of the same goes to show that the report of Neurological Department has been submitted which is annexed with it. The Medical Officer (Neurology), Mental Hospital, Varanasi has reported that there is no mental illness of the applicant. The compliance affidavit of State has been placed in which annexure no. 1 is the minutes drawn by a team of 06 Members along with Chairman of Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, BHU, Varanasi, which states that the applicant has denied any prior history suggestive of any organic neurological disorder. However, MRI of brain has been recommended.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the applicant is not having any neurological and mental issue and is fit.

7. This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Halchal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 624 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Kaptanganj, District- Gorakhpur.

8. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on 18.11.2021. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.306 of 2022 was rejected by this Court on 05.4.2022.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020 and trial in the present case has not yet concluded and is proceeding at a very slow pace as only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and as such will take a lot of time in its conclusion. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-16 of the affidavit.

10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution and the second bail was dismissed on merits by this Court. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. He submits that he shall ensure that the witnesses appear in the trial regularly without any fail and the trial proceeds expeditiously.

11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court on 18.11.2021. The same reads as under:- "No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State is present. The bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

12. The second bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.306 of 2022 was rejected by this Court on 05.4.2022. The same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Babita Kumari, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Halchal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 624 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kopaganj, District Mau. The first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18699 of 2021 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. lodged by Jay Prakash Ram the brother of the deceased/Prakash Ram, the present incident is an incident of sudden quarrel, after which the applicant is said to have assaulted the deceased with fawra due to which he received injury and died. It is argued that the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 20 and is in jail since 27.11.2020 as stated in para-21 of the affidavit. Per contra, learned State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation of his assaulting the deceased with fawra. There is a recovery of fawra on the pointing out of the applicant on 27.11.2020. It is argued that the deceased has received three injuries on his person which are fatal injuries. The cause of death as opined by the doctor is due to ante mortem injury. It is argued that there is repeated blows by the applicant upon the deceased and as such there was an intention to commit the said offence. It is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is role assigned to the applicant. There is an eye witness account of the incident. There is recovery of fawra which is alleged to have been used for murder of the deceased. The deceased has received three sharp edged injuries which shows that the blows were repeated. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

13. In so far as the mental illness of the applicant is concerned, there is no report showing any mental illness of the applicant. He was found to be fit mentally. The trial is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020.

14. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.

15. However, looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad