(1.) Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
(2.) This is the 2nd bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 9.11.2017 with a direction to the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial of the applicant within 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, but more than one year has since been elapsed the trial has not been concluded.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and village party bandi and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the main role has been attributed to co-accused Shyam Veer. The applicant has been assigned only the role of causing injury to the injured in his hand by firm arm. According to the doctor opinion the injuries no.1 & 2 may be possible with one firm arm. Thus, the injury report does not corroborate the prosecution version, which clearly indicates that the prosecution story is doubtful. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is still in jail since 4.1.2017.