Allahabad High Court
Naman Verma Third Bail Application vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10046 of 2021 Applicant :- Naman Verma Third Bail Application Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adil Aziz Khan,Mohd. Shahid Akhtar Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned counsel for the informant/ complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is the third bail application which has been moved by the accused/applicant- Naman Verma for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 894 of 2018, under Sections 364, 392, 411, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri, during trial, as his earlier two bail applications have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 6.2.2019 and 20.9.2019.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances which have been placed against the applicant are not of conclusive nature and there is no possibility that the applicant may be convicted in the trial.
It is further submitted that the prosecution is well aware of the fact that its case is weak and only on account of this they are not presenting the prosecution witnesses before the trial court and despite the applicant being in jail since 21.8.2018, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been testified so far before the trial court.
It is further submitted that the pace with which the trial is going on before the trial court it is not expected that the same may be concluded in near future. The applicant is not having any criminal history and having regard to the period of incarceration the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the informant/ complainant, however, submits that earlier two bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits and there is no new ground available to the applicant except the period of incarceration. The prosecution has presented 4 prosecution witnesses before the trial court and the witnesses which have remained to be testified are formal witness over whom informant/ complainant is not having any control.
Learned AGA has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant/ complainant and opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that already the prayer of bail of the applicant has been rejected twice on merits and there is no new ground available to him.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that earlier two bail applications moved by the applicant have been rejected by this Court on 6.2.2019 and 20.9.2019. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for the applicant in order to project that the circumstances placed against the applicant are not conclusive in nature and since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, having regard to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses testified so far before the trial court, the conviction of the applicant is a remote possibility.
Be that as it may two earlier bail applications moved by the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court. The law with regard to the subsequent bail applications is well settled that the subsequent bail application could only be considered if there is material change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application. So far the applicant is concerned except period of incarceration there is no other new ground is emerging. The other grounds which have been raised have already been considered at the time of disposal of the first and second bail applications by this Court and after considering the same the request of bail of the applicant was rejected.
Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to accept the prayer of bail of the applicant and as such this third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is also rejected.
However, as it is evident that the applicant is in jail in this case since 21.8.2018. Four prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and now only formal witnesses appears to have remained to be testified. Thus, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make all out efforts/ endeavour to conclude the same within six months from today and for this purpose the trial court may fix the case once in a week.
It is also provided that the Superintendent of Police, Kheri shall be responsible for producing the remaining prosecution witnesses on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
It is also provided that if the trial court will fail in concluding the trial within six months from today, the applicant may renew his prayer of bail before this Court after the lapse of six months.
A copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial court for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Muk