Jagdeo and Another vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri. C.K. Jha, advocate, appearing for the applicants and A.G.A. for the State on the second bail application, in which prayer for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicants Jagdeo and Gulab, who are facing trial in S.T. No. 37 of 2006, arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Khanna, district Hamirpur.

The first bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14844 of 2006 was rejected on merit vide order dated 24.7.2007 passed by Hon''ble R.N. Misra, J.

Certain arguments on merit have been made by learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, but no such new ground has been pointed out, which was not available at the time of passing the order on the first bail application. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (XXXVII)1998 ACC 287 : 1998 (2) ACR 1264 and having regard to the observations made by the Hon''b1e Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. (LI)2005 ACC 727 : 2005 (1) ACR 715 (SC), the second bail application on the same grounds, which were available at the time of dismissal of first bail application, is not maintainable.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicants cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous crime, In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (LXVIII)2008 ACC 115 : 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner, would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the IInd bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months positively, making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure.

S.S.P., Hamirpur is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of rest witnesses after obtaining their summons from the trial Court concerned and it must be ensured that all the witnesses are produced in S.T. No. 37 of 2006 without causing any delay.

The Sessions Judge, Hamirpur will also ensure that trial of the accused persons in aforesaid session trial is concluded within aforesaid period. Progress report by the Sessions Judge will be submitted after three months, which will be laid before the Bench by the office.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial Court concerned, Sessions Judge and S.S.P., Hamirpur for necessary action.