Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JITENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jitendra Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 17072 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9989 (22 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

                                                                                    A.F.R.

CRIMINAL MISC. III BAIL APPLICATION NO.17072 OF 2005

Jitendra Singh......................................Applicant.

                   Versus

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

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Viresh Misra, Senior Advocates assisted by Sri D.R. Choudhary learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is third bail application on behalf of the applicant. Submission is that when the F.I.R. was registered, four accused were given identical role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased but after post mortem was conducted, only one firearm injury was found on the body of the deceased.  Subsequently, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the present applicant Jitendra Singh was attributed role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased. On consideration of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first bail application was rejected, though co-accused Manoj was granted bail. Besides, consideration was that the motive assigned is to the present applicant. At the time, when the first bail application was rejected on 1.2.2005, a direction was given to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order.  Second bail application was rejected by this Court on 21.3.2005 and once again, it was directed that every endeavour should be made to dispose off the trial in terms of previous order passed by the Court while rejecting the first bail application. While rejecting the second bail application, this Court had noticed that two brothers namely Dharmendra @ Munnu and Virendra @ Babloo were still absconding.  They had tried to extend threat to the witnesses.  Now, third bail application has been moved after evidence of two eye-witnesses P.W.1 Vinod Kumar and P.W. 2 Ravindra Pal Singh has been completed in session trial no. 76 of 2005.  These are only two eye witnesses.  

Submission is that though the applicant was attributed role of firing by the witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have given omnibus allegations against all the accused in their statement recorded before the court. They have stated that all the four assailants opened fired. Admittedly, there is a single injury caused on the deceased and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the bail application is being pressed for the third time. Besides, the applicant is in jail since approximately two years and, therefore, he is entitled for bail.

Last point canvassed is that in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit, it is brought to my notice that injured witness Ravindra and his two brothers are harden criminal and involved in dozen of cases.  Their criminal history has been detailed in this paragraph. The third bail application is opposed by Sri P.K. Srivastava, who filed counter affidavit. he submitted that there is no criminal history of Satyendra, who died in the incident. Next submission is that the trial is at this stage of argument and is pending at this stage since December, 2005 and the next date fixed is 29.5.2006. Besides, the present applicant was arrested in Haryana after one and half year, two accused are still absconding.  One co-accused who has been granted bail has not appeared on the previous dates and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. He along with other two co-accused, who are absconding, attempted to intimidate the witnesses.  In the circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

In view of what has been stated above, the trial has almost come to an end and also that two accused are still at large.  I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant at this stage since 29.5.2006 is the next date fixed for argument. The third bail application is rejected.

I direct the Sessions Judge to complete the trial within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The court shall make every endeavour to give final judgment by 29.7.2006 without granting undue adjournment to the parties.  

Dt. 22.5.2006

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.