Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CONTENTIONS OF THE VICTIM/COMPLAINANT:

42. Learned counsel for the victim/complainant, Sri Amarjeet Rakhra, at the outset, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the bail rejection order of the applicant at the Court of Sessions does not include all the sections, wherein the bail is being sought by the applicant from this Court. The bail application in the added sections i.e. 307, 326, 427, 34 IPC, 30 Arms Act and 177 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been directly moved before the High Court without taking recourse to the Sessions Court, Kheri, which is not permissible under law.

44. Learned counsel has next stated that as far as rejection of bail is concerned, there may not strictly be parity, yet propriety and consistency in judicial approach demands that this Court may reject the bail application of the applicant, Ashish Mishra @ Monu, whose role in the commission of crime is much more prominent than of the co-accused persons, whose bail applications have been rejected.

45. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant, who is the son of Union Minister of State For Home, and who himself is a political person, was a contender on BJP ticket from Nighasen Constituency for Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections held in the year 2022. The applicant has a criminal history of two more cases in addition to the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the power, the applicant yields, can be appreciated from the fact that in one of the cases, the applicant has been acquitted, while the other case has been withdrawn by the State Government. The character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, when viewed in juxtaposition of crime in question, is such that releasing him on bail would result in justice being thwarted.

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

68. In the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia & Anr.13, it has been held that:-

"12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail."

88. The change of route of the Chief Guest was an open secret, as it was known to one and all including the applicant and the protestors.

89. The trial has not yet started as charge have not been framed, so the ambiguity in sections, if any, in the final report can be corrected at the stage of framing of charge.

90. The controversy of some sections not finding mentioned in the bail rejection order of the Court of Sessions has already been put to rest by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2022, and it does not require fresh adjudication.