Anoop Singh (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.8.2017 vide Bail No.3173 of 2017.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the relevant record.

This bail application has been filed by the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.236 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.

As a new ground, it is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the first bail application, it was considered by the Court that in this case five persons were named but only present applicant was charge-sheeted and other four accused persons have not been charge-sheeted. It is alleged that when the investigation proceeded other four accused persons have also been charge-sheeted. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case of indiscriminate firing and a child of ten months, who was sitting on the window along with her mother have also sustained fire arm injuries.

At this stage, it is not clear that whose fire had hit the deceased. It is also stated that during the course of statement of one Dharma Devi, who is grand mother of the deceased was recorded where she had assigned the role of the present applicant and one other co-accused Lallan Patel @ Gheta @ Anil. In the F.I.R. itself it is mentioned that all the five co-accused have come in the door of the complainant and made discriminating firing, due to which, signs of fire on the wall and door of the complainant are there. Since window was opened one of the pellet had inserted the deceased.

The entire material of the case has already been considered in the first bail application.

No new ground could be brought to our notice to entertain this second application for bail.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the fact that no new ground exists for granting bail, the bail application deserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected.

While disposing of first bail application, direction has been given to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of eight months. It is further directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within six months without granting any unnecessary adjournment either of the parties. If witnesses are not coming forth, coercive action shall be taken against them.

Order Date :- 5.8.2019 sks