Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Harnath vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 48


Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1621 of 2008


Petitioner :- Harnath
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- I.C. Maurya,Brijesh Sahai
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate


Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.

Applicant- Harnath seeks bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2007, under
Sections 147,148,149,452,302,307 IPC & 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act & Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Madanpur,
District Shahjahanpur.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and
also perused the material placed on record.

Submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the incident is of night and the applicant has not been assigned any
specific role rather general allegation of firing has been assigned
against all the assailants. He further contends that the applicant is in jail
since 18.2.2007 and the trial has not concluded. Although the trial has
commenced and substantially proceeded but it is likely to consume
some more time to conclude. Moreover, the applicant has got no
criminal history to his credit, thus deserves to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed this bail application and
contended that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons were
named in the First Information Report and the applicant as well as other
co-accused persons are alleged to have caused injuries to Ram
Rahees @ Chhanga and Km. Radha, who succumbed to the injuries as
well as one Leelawati has also sustained injury. The medical reports
are in no way at a variance with the prosecution version. The applicant
is alleged to have committed brutal murder of two innocent persons,
thus he does not deserve to be released on bail. Moreover, the
prosecution is apprehensive of the fact that in case the applicant is
allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing
away from the judicial process.

Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would
not be proper for this court to discuss evidence and give reasoning for
consideration of his bail as it would undoubtedly affect the trial. The bail
prayer of the applicant is declined and the application is hereby rejected,
without expressing any opinion on merit of the case.

However, keeping in view of the fact that the applicant is in jail since
18.2.2007, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an
endeavour to conclude it as expeditiously as possible in consonance
with the provisions 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 necessary
compliance.

Order Date :- 29.1.2010
Mt/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

9 queries in 0.110 seconds.