VIPUL @ KHUNNI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 149 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of IPC, Police Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48177 of 2018.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not named in first information report and that his test identification parade has also not been conducted. It was submitted that there is no reliable evidence against applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that after rejection of first bail application, four witnesses have already been examined but they have not supported prosecution version and none of them has made any such statement that applicant was involved in alleged incident. Learned counsel has referred statements of witnesses and submitted that the alleged eye witnesses have ruled out the involvement of the alleged incident and thus, the applicant is entitled for bail. Regarding criminal history of applicant, learned counsel submitted that criminal history cannot be a basis for allowing or rejection of bail application and in this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., (2020) 1 Crimes (SC) 143. It was further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2018 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.