Nipendra vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri. Shahabuddin, advocate, appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State on the third bail application which has been moved on behalf of the applicant Nipendra, who is facing trial in S.T. No. 598 of 2004, State v. Vaibhav Maheshwari and Ors. arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2004 under Sections 302, 307, 452 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Amroha Nagar district J.P. Nagar.

The First Bail Application Bearing No. 19973 of 2004 was rejected on merit vide order dated 1.2.2005. Thereafter, Second Bail Application Bearing No. 19638 of 2005 was moved, which was also rejected on merit vide order dated 30.7.2007.

The main submission in support of the third bail application made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that Dr. Ameer Singh has been examined in trial Court in S.T. No. 598 of 2004 and on the basis of his statement, this fact is borne out that injuries to the deceased were caused by some heavy sharp edged weapon and hence the case of prosecution is falsified, as injuries to the deceased are said to have been caused by knives. This Court cannot record any finding on this point, as it will require appreciation of the statement of Dr. Ameer Singh. No other ground, which was not available at the time of dismissal of first and second bail applications, has been brought to my notice. Therefore, keeping in view 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 (SC) and having regard to the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. (LI)2005 ACC 727 (SC) : 2005 (1) ACR 715 this 3rd bail application is not maintainable.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (LXIII)2008 ACC 115 : 2008 (3) ACR 3216 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 third bail application is hereby rejected.

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

S.S.P., J.P. Nagar is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of rest witnesses after obtaining their summons from the Court concerned and it must be ensured that all the rest witnesses are produced in Session Trial No. 57 of 2008 without causing any delay.

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