State of U.P v. Shani Mali), under sections
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21094 of 2025 Applicant :- Shani Mali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Monis Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mohd. Monis, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Compliance affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. in Court today is taken on record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Shani Mali, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2021, under sections 460, 411 IPC, Police Station- Chandpur, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 909 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Shani Mali), under sections 60, 411 IPC, Police Station- Chandpur, District- Fatehpur now pending in the Court of Additional Distirct and Sessions Judge, Court No.- 2, Fatehpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11. 2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28845 of 2022 (Shani Mali Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, the order dated 18.11.2022 is reproduced herien under: "1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant, Shani Mali seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2021, under Sections 460, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandpur, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a named as well as a charge-sheeted accused. However, he is innocent. Drawing a parallel in between the F.I.R. and the statement of the first informant as well as the witness of the occurrence, he submits that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have not remained consistent. He has thus doubted the credibility as well as the reliability of the eye-witness of the occurrence. He further submits that motive behind the occurrence was that he was running away with one sack of mustard which was stolen by him. He submits that the motive assigned to the applicant to commit the crime is too weak. It is also submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was the domestic servant of first informant and therefore, prima facie, there is presumption regarding his innocence. It is lastly submitted that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 23.9.2021. As such, he has undergone more than one year and one month of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present bail application. He submits that applicant is a named as well as a charge-sheeted accused. The occurrence in question has been witnessed by the wife of first informant. She has implicated the applicant in the crime in question. The recovery of the gamchha by which strangulation was committed upon the deceased was also recovered from the applicant. It is, thus, contended that the medical evidence clearly support the ocular version of the occurrence. There is nothing on record on the basis of which false implication or malicious prosecution of applicant could be inferred. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of the applicant. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that the wife of first informant is an eye-witness of the occurrence, who has clearly identified the applicant and implicated him in the crime in question, the recovery of the gamchha by which strangulation was committed upon the deceased by the applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, this application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. 9. It is accordingly, rejected. " Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and also facing trail before Court below, however, in view of the above circumstance as now have emerged on on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that charge-sheet/police report was submitted against applicant by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2021. Thereafter on 14.11.2021, the charges were framed by Court below against applicant vide framing of charge order dated 27.9.2022. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than two years and 10 months has rolled by, only one prosecution witness has deposed before Court below till date. As such, trial is not proceeding at required pace but at a snail's space. As such, the trial is not likely to get concluded in near future. In view of above and the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, he is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the hearing of trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Learned A.G.A submits that the article by which strangulation was committed upon deceased was recovered on the pointing out of applicant. By reason of above, the said recovery is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The said evidence has not been dislodged up to this stage. Furtermore, considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the sentence provided for the offence complained of against applicant, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant cannot be said to be so sufficient a circumstance so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. As such, no new good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. Learned A.G.A. thus contends that this repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence accusation made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any new good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, the present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad