KRISHNA AUTAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. In Sessions Trial No. 2095 of 2005, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Kaushambi, one of the accused Kamal Kumar Tripathi, out of three, had applied for bail to the High Court and the following order, was passed on 23-2-2005 by the High Court: "heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the O. P. Complainant and also learned A. G. A. The accused-applicant Kamal Narain Tripathi is involved in the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427, 201 and 34 I. P. C. in Crime Case No. 117 of 2003 P. S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and as per allegations made in the F. I. R. The role of the applicant is said to have fire with D. B. B. L. Gun whereas in the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , he was said to have been armed with country made pistol in this regard and as per post-mortem report no such injury has been caused to the deceased and no incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the applicant-accused and on the ground of village Partibandi and village Pradhan, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and co-accused Girish Tewari has been granted bail by the Court below as stated in para-14 of the affidavit and as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-complainant and learned A. G. A. have, however, opposed the prayer for bail as specific allegation is there against the accused-applicant in this regard for having caused fire-arm injuries to the deceased and there is also an injured witness who had also suffered injuries in this regard showing his presence on the spot vide Annexure -3 of the affidavit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the incident had taken place in broad day light in the morning of 9-9-2004 at 10. 00 a. m. for which the report was lodged immediately after the occurrence at 11. 30 a. m. on the same day naming the applicant-accused to have specifically caused fire-arm injuries to the deceased as well as the injuries have been caused to the alleged injured- Kishan Autar Tripathi vide Annexure-3 of the affidavit which was medically examined on the same day at 3. 10 p. m. showing his presence on the spot and he has also given his statement against the applicant in this regard. In view of that the applicant's case is not fit for bail. As regards delay in the trial as the applicant is in jail since long, the trial Court shall make necessary endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Court concerned, keeping in view of the provision of Section 309 Cr. P. C. in this regard. With the aforesaid direction, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected. The office is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- C. P. Mishra, J. 23-2-2005. "

(2.) SINCE the case could not be concluded, the accused again applied for bail before the High Court and on 21-9-2006, the following order was passed by the High Court. "this is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 12-5- 2005. It is fairly conceded by learned Senior Counsel Shri V. P. Srivastava that the trial is progressing fast and the I. O. has already been examined in the case. In this view of the matter, I direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it positively within a period of one month from today without granting any further adjournment to the prosecution of the case. A copy of this order to be sent to the trial Court within a period of two days. Put up this bail application for further arguments on 27-10-2006 showing the name of Shri J. S. Sengar as Counsel for the informant. Sd/- Vinod Prasad, J. 21-9-2006. "

(3.) IT does not become clear from the record of this Court as to when order dated 21-9-2006 reached the Trial Court. The record shows that 23-9-2006 was earlier fixed in the case. IT can easily be assumed that above order dated 21-9-2006 passed by the High Court would not have reached the Trial Court by 23-9- 2006. That will show that the trial Court itself fixed 9-10-2006 for hearing in the case. That shows that the Trial Court fixed the date 17, days ahead.