Allahabad High Court
Uma Shankar Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 7 January, 2010
Author: Surendra Singh
Bench: Surendra Singh
Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2294 of 2009 Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Kamlesh Shukla,I.K. Chaturvedi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Shri Kamlesh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused material placed on record.
The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that as per the post mortem report, the deceased has sustained three fire arm wounds appears to have been caused by single weapon as the dimension of the wounds are in no way different. He has further contended that the alleged eye witnesses are the chance witnesses, in fact, none has seen the incident. He has further contended that the proseuction could not possibly furnish any adequate motive to the applicant for this terrible exhibition of violence. He further submits that the applicant is in Jail since 30.7.2006 and the trial has not concluded.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and specific role of firing on the deceased has been attributed to him. The medical report is in no way at a variance to the prosecution story. The trial is in progress, therefore, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail.
Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. The bail prayer is refused and the application is hereby rejected.
However, taking into account that the applicant is behind the bar since 30.7.2006, the District & Sessions Judge/ Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude it expeditiously in consonence with the provision of Section 309 Cr. P.C. Both the parties are expected to co- operate in the trial and not to seek unnecessary adjournment.
The office is directed to send the copy of this order immediately to the District & Sessions Judge/ Trial Court for communication and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010 SFH