DUSHYANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant in connection with case Crime No. 356 of 1997 under Sections 376 and 302ipc, read with Section 3 (1) (2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P. S. Chandawak. District Jaunpur. The matter is pending at the trial stage now and wit nesses have been examined.

(2.) THE first prayer for bail for the present applicant in this very case was rejected on 15-5-1999 and the present ap plication was filed in July, 1999. In the second application, the petitioner proposed to refer to the statements of the witnesses made during the trial and he further proposed to draw an inference that the statements are contradictory inter re as also contradictory to their first narration before the police. And, at least, one wit ness Subedar Ram was declared hostile. THE learned Counsel placed before me a certified copy of the order- sheet of the trial Court to impress that the trial is pend ing for examination of further witnesses while the witnesses of facts have been ex amined and further to impress that the petitioner is in custody for a long period.

(3.) THE main witnesses in the case have already been examined and although there is no chance of any tampering at the present, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the allegations made in the FIR and in the evidence. Any order for bail at this stage may not only hamper the progress of he trial but would also give a signal about the appreciation of evidence which must be left to be done by the trial Judge. THE only direction that can be given is that the trial Judge is to conclude the trial without un necessary delay.