Kamil vs State of U.P.

Kalimullah Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

This is second bail application made on behalf of accusedapplicant (Kamil). His first bail application has already been rejected on merit by this Court, vide order dated 27.4.2012 with a direction as under :

"However, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Trial court is further directed to sit tight over the matter and not to allow any adjournment to either of the parties on fictitious and frivolous ground. In case, the applicant adopts dilatory tactics in trial, he should not get any benefit of discretionary nature"

The ground taken up in this second bail application is that the trial court has failed to conclude the trial within four months as directed by this Court on 27.4.2012, hence the applicant deserves bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned private counsel for the complainant have urged that accused applicant himself is responsible for delay in trial. Inviting my attention towards the ordersheets maintained by the trial court, they argued that after rejecting the first bail application by this Court, the applicant started adopting delaying tactics. Unnecessarily, without any justification, applicant claimed himself to be juvenile. Much precious time was consumed in the disposal of his plea of juvenality. Ultimately, it was found that applicant was not juvenile and his application to that effect was rejected, vide detailed orders passed by the trial court.

Further, learned counsel for the defence did not crossexamine the witnesses examined by the prosecution. A number of adjournments were moved by the applicant on one pretext or the other including the nonavailability and unwillingness of the learned defence counsel. At occasions, more than once, learned trial court has been pleased to observe in the ordersheet that defence is adopting delaying tactics and delaying the trial. The defence tried to delay the trial by not crossexamining the prosecution witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 and ultimately their opportunity of crossexamination was closed by the trial court. Doctor and Inspector were examined as prosecution witnesses and thereafter an application under Section311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.3 and P.W.4 for crossexamination was made by accused and in the boarder interest of justice and with a view to shorten the languity of the trial, learned trial court allowed the said application and prosecution witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 were again summoned, therefore, it is not on account of the laxity on the part of the prosecution or the trial court that the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period, noted above. Hence, accusedapplicant cannot be given the benefit of his own follies.

There appears substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. because their submissions are fully supported by the facts mentioned in the ordersheets of the trial court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. Therefore, the second bail application of the applicant stands rejected. However, learned trial court is further impressed upon to make its endeavour best to conclude the trial within three months and parties are supposed to cooperate with the trial.