Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6152 of 2009 Petitioner :- Faizan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Ashwini Kr. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
Sri S.K. Dwivedi filed memo of appearance on behalf of applicant as
well as learned Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today, both
are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel the applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused material placed on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is not named in the F.I.R dated 17.1.2008. It is contended that
the name of the applicant has figured in the statement of alleged witness
of the incident namely Daya Ram and the statement of Smt. Manisha
wife of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant is in
jail since 2.12.2008 and the trial has not concluded, though trial has
already commenced and substantially proceeded and is likely to
consume some more time to conclude, thus, the applicant deserves to be
released on bail at this stage.
However, learned AGA has opposed this bail application and has
contended that as many as number of witnesses have already been
examined and it will not be proper to release the applicant on bail at this
stage. Moreover, the prosecution apprehends that in case the applicant is
allowed to be released on bail, there is likelihood of his fleeing away
from the judicial process.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the material placed on record, I do not think that it would be
proper for this Court to discuss evidence and give reasoning for
cancellation of prayer of bail, as any impression or opinion by this
Court, would undoubtedly affect the trial. Moreover, as contended by
the learned AGA that some of the prosecution witnesses have already
been examined. If that is so, that is all the more reason for this Court not
to release the applicant on bail when the trial is at precarious stage. The
bail prayer of the applicant is declined and the application is
accordingly rejected without expressing any opinion on merit of case.
However, keeping in view of the fact that the applicant is in jail since
2.12.2008, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an
endeavour to conclude it expeditiously in consonance with the provision
of Section 309 Cr. P.C. Both the parties are expected to co-operate in
the trial and not to seek unnecessary adjournment.
The office is directed to send the copy of this order immediately to the
District & Sessions Judge/ Trial Court for communication and
Order Date :- 28.1.2010