Allahabad High Court
Kamal Kishore Singh @ Pappu Singh Third ... vs State Of U.P. on 26 April, 2022
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10040 of 2019 Applicant :- Kamal Kishore Singh @ Pappu Singh Third Bail Application Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. This is the third bail application, the first bail application No.7963 of 2016 and the second bail application No.1839 of 2018 having been rejected vide orders dated 2.8.2017 and 17.4.2019 respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 2.8.2017 (supra), the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. He submits that till date, the trial has not concluded.
It is further submitted that the witnesses of recovery, namely Ankit Sharma and his father have been declared hostile and therefore, on this ground, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
It is also submitted that P.W.10 Investigating Officer has admitted that the accused has not been put to test identification parade. The State in para 28 of the counter affidavit has admitted the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the trial could not be concluded in time. However, the prosecution evidence is concluded and the trial can be expedited and concluded within the shortest possible time.
He further submits that along with the recovery of Scooty, there are various other articles recovered from the present applicant and therefore, even if the witnesses of recovery memo have turned hostile, that will not come to the benefit of the applicant.
He further submits that it is a heinous offence of murder and the prosecution case is supported by three eye-witness account, i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
4. On due consideration to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that no case for bail is made out. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, considering the report dated 21.4.2022 of the trial court that all the prosecution witnesses have led their evidence and the trial is at the stage of recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the trial of the case shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
5. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court within a week.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022 kkb/