Ajay vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this on 19.8.2011 with the observation to conclude the trial expeditiously without unreasonable delay.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted hat the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Mukesh from whom there was recovery of silver bowel and Mobile Phone Co-accused Mukesh has already been released on bail. There is no criminal history. However, the applicant is in jail since 22.10.2010, and trial is still pending, hence on the aforesaid ground he is entitled for bail.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the first bail application was rejected in the month of August, 2010 and while rejecting the first bail application the fact that the co-accused Mukesh whose case is identical has been considered, hence this is not new ground for bail.

Considered the submission of the parties. The statement of the witnesses are being recorded and the trial court is expected to conclude the trial in near future. There was recovery of looted articles from the possession of the applicant.

In view of the fact since there is no new ground except the delay of trial, hence at this stage it is not a fit case for bail and is accordingly rejected. However, the trial court is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.