UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANIL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short "Cr.P.C") has been filed by Union of India through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, S.I.C. IV, New Delhi for modifying the order dated 1.9.2003, passed by a Bench of Single Judge (since superannuated) of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21335 of 2003 by recalling the direction to the trial Court for releasing Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Yadav, opposite party, on bail if the trial is not concluded within three months by repeating the direction.

(2.) THE facts of the matter, as per petitioner in short, are that opposite party is in jail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 976 of 1999, relating to the murder of Ajit Sarkar, the then M.L.A. and others and the case was entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation (In short "CBI") by the Government of India with the consent of Government of Bihar in the year, 1998 and during investigation, it was fond that co -accused Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav had hatched conspiracy alongwith this petitioner and others to eliminate Ajit Sarkar with whom he was having political rivalry and it further transpired that on the day of co -accused Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, sitting at Delhi, gave instructions on telephone to co -accused Rajan Tiwary for eliminating Ajit Sarkar. According to CBI, during investigation it transpired that on 14.6.1998 at about 4.45 p.m., the opposite party, driving a motorcycle with co -accused Harish Choudhary and on another motorcycle co -accused Rajan Tiwary and Amar Yadav intercepted the car of Ajit Sarkar and, thereafter, Ajit Sarkar, his friend Ashfaqur Rahman and his driver were killed. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and presently the case is at the stage of evidence and till now twenty seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and among prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have categorically stated and identified opposite party to be one of the members who intercepted the car of Ajit Sarkar and committed murder of Ajit Sarkar alongwith his friend and driver. The further case of CBI is that opposite party moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr. Misc. No. 10880 of 2000 but his prayer was rejected on 28.4.2000. He again filed a petition for bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 29959 of 2000 and his prayer was again rejected considering the statement of CBI on counter -affidavit that on the date fixed for evidence, he did not attend the Court and practically he refused to be produced before the Court. Opposite party then again filed his third bail application vide Cr. Misc. No. 21335 of 2003 annexing an order dated 23.5.2003 passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 28179 of 2003 granting bail to co - accused Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav but his prayer, after hearing him and CBI, was rejected but with a direction to the trial Court to take up the trial on day - to -day basis and conclude the same within three months next from the date of presentation of the copy of the order from the side of opposite party and it was further observed that if the trial was not concluded within the time -frame, as mentioned above, trial judge will release opposite party on bail to his satisfaction. The further case of the petitioner is that during the intervening period, Patna Civil Court, where the trial is being held, was closed during the entire month of October, 2003 for Puja vacation and it reopened on 1st November, 2003 and for this reason, the prosecution could not avail the entire period of three months and it is difficult to conclude the evidence within the time -frame because all the witnesses hail from different districts and some from different States. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned ,counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nature of allegation against opposite party is very serious and there is every likelihood that after release on bail, opposite party will abscond causing obstruction in running of trial or he will try to obstruct the remaining prosecution witnesses from appearing in Court by giving them threatening.

(3.) ON issuance of notice, opposite party has appeared through his counsel who has opposed the prayer of petitioner.