Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant states that a direction may be given to the trial court for expeditious disposal of trial. Accordingly, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the trial, within a period of six months."

Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is conscious about the fact that he may not raise any ground in the third bail application which could have been raised at the time of rejection of first and second bail application, therefore, he is pressing this bail application only on the point that (i) the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. 1.11.2014, about seven years and six months; (ii) there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; (iii) as per the statutory prescription u/s 35 of the POCSO Act the trial in these cases should be concluded within a period of one year; (iv) despite the specific direction being issued by this Court on 28.2.2019 to conclude the trial within six months more than three years period have passed but neither the trial has been concluded nor there is any possibility of conclusion of trial in near future inasmuch as only fact witnesses have been examined, and (iv) after rejection of second bail application of the present applicant the co-accused Munna has been granted bail in his fourth bail application on 29.10.2021 in Bail No. 7440 of 2020, co-accused Sunny has been granted bail on 2.2.2022 in his third bail application bearing No. 14487 of 2021 and co-accused Deepu @ Sangam has been granted bail in his fourth bail application on 3.3.2022 in Bail Application No. 2076 of 2020.

So far as the conclusion of trial in near future is concerned, learned AGA has submitted that further direction may be issued to expedite the trial but at this stage it cannot be said that the trial cannot be concluded in near future with promptness. Lastly, on the point that the aforesaid three co-accused persons have been granted bail after rejection of second bail application of the present applicant, learned AGA has submitted that the same being the matter of record, he has nothing to say.

I have recently decided second bail application of one Nirmala bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12363 of 2021 on 27.4.2022 considering the decision of Division Bench of this Court in re: Nanha s/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., reported in 1993 CriLJ 938, wherein the question was considered as to whether any accused may be entitled for bail in his / her subsequent bail application, if after rejection of his / her bail, the other co-accused person (s) have been granted bail. The Division Bench considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if after rejection of bail application of any accused person, the co-accused person (s) has / have been granted bail, the said ground may be considered to grant bail to such accused person.

Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered.

Para 7,8 and 9 in re: Nirmala (supra) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12363 of 2021 reads as under :

"7. Sri Gupta has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of Division Bench of this Court in re; Nanha S/O Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., reported in 1993 CriLJ 938, wherein the question was considered as to whether any accused may be entitled for bail in his/her subsequent bail application, if after rejection of his/her bail, the other co-accused persons have been granted bail. In para-1 of the judgment, the aforesaid question has been indicated, which reads as under:-