High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:163961 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53617 of 2022 Applicant :- Afjal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Laloriya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
It is settled law that ocular version is not incompatible with the medical evidence to prevail. Here the question is whether absence of incised wound on bony part of body would amount to disproving the use of Talwar, considering the seats of injuries, medical evidence cannot be said to be incompatible with ocular version, hence bail application is rejected." 8. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.2.2022 in non prosecution. The said order reads as under:- "Matter taken up in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application. Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J (as he was then) vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19439 of 2017 (Afjal vs. State of U.P.). Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State is present. The bail application is dismissed for non prosecution." 9. The ground as is being argued is of delay in trial. The supplementary affidavit annexes with it the statements of 10 prosecution witnesses and the order sheet of the trial court which show that all 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The same goes to show that trial is going on diligently and there appears to be no delay in it. No ground exists to entertain the present third bail application and to release the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others: (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (decided on 06.2.2022) and the order dated 30.9.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 8905 of 2022: Mukesh Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, subject to any legal impediment. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
2. Heard Sri Anupam Laloriya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Afjal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 500 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 307 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Bardari, District Bareilly. 4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19439 of 2017 was rejected on 21.09.2017. The second bail application the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21213 of 2018 was rejected by this Court on 21.2.2022 in non prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2016. It is submitted while placing the supplementary affidavit dated 05.03.2024 that in the trial 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined, para-3 of the said affidavit and Annexure No. S.A.-1 have been placed before the Court for the same. Further while placing the order-sheet of the trial court from 04.05.2017 to 20.02.2024 it is submitted that the same would go to show that trial is still pending. The same is Annexure No. S.A.-2 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the said fact, bail application of the applicant be allowed and he be directed to be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2017 after considering merits of the matter and the second bail application was also rejected in non prosecution vide order dated 21.2.2022 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the fact remains that the trial is at advanced stage and all the witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that looking to the advance stage of trial, role of the applicant and the order dated 21.09.2017 rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, an appropriate direction be issued to the trial court for expediting trial. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.09.2017. The same reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Afjal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 500 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 325, 302 I.P.C. P.S.- Baradari, District- Bareilly. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated due to previous litigation, according to ocular version applicant has been said to have inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased by Talwar, a sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel further submits that in the medical examination only depressed wound could be found, no incised wound was found on the head. He further submits that the ocular version stands falsified by the medical evidence, applicant has no previous criminal history. On behalf of State and the complainant bail has been opposed. Sri Madan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, Advocate, appearing for the complainant submits that on 25.06.2016 at 6.00 PM nine named and two unnamed persons having armed themselves entered the house of the deceased and started beating the household members, the applicant is said to have struck Talwar on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that in the postmortem examination three stitched wounds, one on parietal bone, another on occipital bone and the third one on forehead, besides one abrasion were found. According to him, in the incident four persons sustained injuries, they gave eye witness account corroborating the prosecution version.