Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5529 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9665 (17 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.54

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5529  OF 2005

Amar Singh............................................Applicant.

                   Versus

State of U.P........................................Opposite Party.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant today, which is taken on record. Notice of which was given in the month of April, 2006.

The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 9.12.2004 on the ground that there is specific allegation against the applicant attributing role of firing and causing death to the deceased. The trial court was directed to make necessary endeavour to dispose of the case finally within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The second bail application was disposed of by allowing the applicant to be released on a short term bail for a period of one month from the date of release on 28.1.2005, on account of death of applicant's mother on 25.1.2005.  The applicant surrendered after expiry of the period of short term bail and he did not misuse the liberty.

The third bail application has been moved on a new ground on the  basis of  statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the trial. According to narration of the First Information Report lodged on 28.6.2004 at 20:45 hours and also on perusal of the F.I.R. it does not show that any witness was injured. General Diary No. 36, time 20:45 hours dated 28.6.2004 is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the 3rd bail application, which shows that in the G.D., specific assertion has been made by the S.I. that the complainant has not received any injury. He has neither stated anything about his injuries having being examined in the hospital nor mentioned that any other witness was injured. Statement of the complainant P.W. 1 was recorded on 21.4.2005. The complainant has stated that he had received three lathi injuries as well as witnesss Divendra Singh and Gitam.  Each of them received three lathi blows.  The complainant has further stated that his clothes was stained with blood on account of bleeding from his head as a result of injuries. Daroga Ji has seen blood stained clothes at the time when he had gone to lodge the F.I.R.  The witness was confronted with the G.D. extract during the trial.  The witness stated that he can give no reason as to why his injuries were not mentioned in the G.D.   On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Sri Dilip Kumar stated that the witness who is the complainant, is absolutely unreliable and therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail in view of false statement given in the court.

I have perused the statement and G.D. extract and heard counsel for the parties at length.  I am not inclined to give my opinion and assessment regarding evidence of the complainant given during the trial.  I cannot lose sight of the fact that while rejecting the first bail application, specific ground was that the present applicant was assigned main role of causing fatal injuries, which position still stands. Evidence of P.W.1 is yet to be assessed by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, therefore, I am not inclined to pre-empt his assessment.  In the circumstances, third bail application is rejected at this stage.

However, I fail to understand, as to why the learned Sessions Judge has not completed the trial within stipulated period of two months allowed by this Court as far back as on 9.12.2004. The applicant is in jail since considerable long period.  Other co-accused have already been granted bail but the present applicant is languishing in jail.   In the circumstances, I reiterate the direction already given by this Court to the learned Sessions Judge concerned to complete the trial within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The trial shall proceed on day to day basis. No undue adjournment shall be granted either to the prosecution or the accused. It is made clear that this direction shall be given effective compliance.  

Office is directed to ensure that the copy of this order is sent to the Sessions Judge concerned within a period of ten days from today.

Learned A.G.A. is directed to send a copy of this order to the Sessions Judge concerned for necessary intimation within a period of one week from today.

Dt. 17.5.2006

rkg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.