GIRAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karuna Nand Bajpai, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused appellant, as the prayer for bail having been earlier rejected on merits vide order dated 22.8.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon. Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon. Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Verma. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has once again tried to persuade us to reconsider the merits of the case and has tried to assail the veracity of the prosecution case as a whole. Arguments like the absence of motive and some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the medical evidence have also been pointed out. Once again the plea of false implication due to enmity has been emphasized by the counsel for the accused applicant. A lot of emphasis has been given to the fact that the accused is in jail since 29.7.2005 and that though at the time when second bail application was moved only a period of three and a half years had passed but now more than 4 years have elapsed since his detention in jail. Some noteworthy cases relied upon by the counsel for the appellant accused are as under:

(2.) IT has been canvassed before us that the pendency period of the appeals in this High Court is unusually large and there is hardly any possibility of the appeals being taken up in near future or in a measurable distance of time. In such a situation the accused must be released on bail after reconsidering the merits of the case. It has also been argued that in case the accused is acquitted in the last, there will be no justification for his incarceration during the period of the pendency of the appeal. The constitutional rights of accused to life and liberty have also been highlighted.

(3.) ACCORDING to him, second bail application can be entertained or allowed only in case the factual situation or the position of law changes in such a manner that it may invalidate the former order of rejection or may justify the grant of bail in the light of the change of factual or legal situation. He submits that a new ground on merits does not mean an argument raised by a new counsel or an argument by same counsel on a subsequent occasion, which could not be argued on earlier occasion. When the Court goes through the record and hears both the parties and passes a judgment on merit, it is deemed to have gone through all the relevant aspects of the case. Otherwise, there can not be any discipline, check or end in moving fresh bail application every second day on the ground that one or the other point could not be argued. It is stated by him that the bail orders by their very nature are not supposed to be very lengthy and it is not always possible for the Courts to write in bail orders all what they have seen in the record and considered even though the counsel might have argued and referred to it. Therefore, a speaking reasoned order is the only requirement of law which has been done in the present case earlier. The Court on consideration found no case in favour of the appellant and rejected the prayer for bail on merits. The learned AGA has placed further reliance upon judgment of the Division Bench reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 3709, Satya Pal versus State of U.P. In this case the following question was referred by a learned Single Judge to be decided by a larger Bench. " Whether a fresh argument in a second bail application for an accused should be allowed to be advanced on those very facts that were available to the accused while the first bail application was moved and rejected"?