KALLU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.364 of 2004, under Sections 302/307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur. The latest progress/status report received from the court below indicates that three witnesses have already been examined in this case. But some more witnesses namely Dr. Ashok, Dr. V.K. Dwivedi, Head Constable Jitendra Singh, Sub Inspector Dubey and Circle Officer Ram Charan have yet to be examined. The case crime number is of the year 2004. While rejecting the fourth bail application this Court had directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order excluding adjournments taken by either of the parties. The report received from the court below shows that at least seven times (from 05.11.2008 to 15.04.2009) the case had to be adjourned for want of witness. The fourth bail application of this case was rejected on 03.01.2008. Since then about more than a year has already passed. The progress report sent by the Court shows some slackness on the part of the prosecution in producing the remaining witnesses. The learned court below is also duty bound to make every endeavour to conclude the trial by taking appropriate strict measures particularly keeping in view the time frame setup by this Court. As far as this bail application is concerned but it would not be proper to make any assessment of substantive statements or to enter into merits of the case at this stage, lest it may affect the final outcome of the trial. The bail is vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, I regret in not finding this fifth bail application to be fit to be allowed. Hence it is rejected. The expeditious trial by the learned court below within the stipulated time frame is however reiterated. The trial has become quite old also. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trail positively within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before it.