0

Emergence of no fresh grounds or events after the disposal of the first bail application is enough to show the lack of merit in the second bail application: Allahabad High Court

A person suffering from a mental disorder or mental sickness deserves special care, love and affection. They are not to be exploited. This judgment was delivered by the single bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan at Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dr Naimish Trivedi v. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No.1229 of 2017].

The applicant had agreed to sell his house and had also received advance money, the dispute was pure of civil nature and the applicant could not get benefit by the death of the deceased. With regard to the telephonic conversation and call details record, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that the said call record and telephonic conversation placed on record by the complainant with the counter affidavit is not an authentic document and cannot be made the basis on a presumption that the applicant had conspired to kill the deceased. The applicant is a renowned Dental Surgeon having his clinic in Mahanagar and it cannot be presumed that he would conspire to kill the deceased. The learned Senior Advocate has referred to the statement of the witnesses, who have been interrogated during the investigation and has submitted that it has come in evidence that the complainant, who is the daughter of the deceased, had a relation with Haseeb @ Asif and he was following the car in which the deceased and the complainant were travelling soon before the occurrence. There is every possibility that Haseeb might have conspired to kill the deceased because being Muslim, his relation and affair with the complainant was objected to by the deceased. It is also a submission on behalf of the applicant that the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of co-accused and as per the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement of the co-accused cannot be read in evidence against the applicant. It has lastly been submitted that co-accused Adnan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.6.2016.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant (Dr Naimish Trivedi), who is languishing in jail since 02.03.2016 in Case Crime No.0001 of 2016. under Sections 302, 34, 120-B and 420 of I.P.C., Police Station-Mahanagar, District-Lucknow. The first bail application of the present applicant bearing Bail Application No.6874 of 2016 has been rejected by this Court on merits on 07.10.206. This second bail application has been filed mainly on the ground that PW-1 the daughter of the deceased, who is an informant, and PW-2, wife of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case while recording their chief statement and the cross-examination. Further, the motive suggested by the prosecution is so weak inasmuch as the present applicant shall not be gaining anything to eliminate the deceased on account of the alleged agreement to sale entered into between the present applicant and the deceased along with his wife. This second bail application has been filed mainly on the ground that PW-1 the daughter of the deceased, who is an informant, and PW-2, wife of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case while recording their chief statement and the cross-examination. Further, the motive suggested by the prosecution is so weak inasmuch as the present applicant shall not be gaining anything to eliminate the deceased on account of the alleged agreement to sale entered into between the present applicant and the deceased along with his wife.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the instant second bail application stands rejected. In the light of the settled proposition of law for filing a second bail application, there is no merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant inasmuch as no fresh grounds or events have been raised which are emerged after disposal of the first bail application. As a matter of fact, all the grounds taken in the second bail application and material shown to the Court have already been considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 07.10.2016. So far as the submission on the point of a long period of incarceration in jail is concerned, I am of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question such ground is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is made clear that I am not expressing my opinion on the merits of the case as I have only considered the merit of the second bail application. It is clarified that my aforesaid observation shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner whatsoever as the learned trial court shall not take any adverse inference out of my aforesaid observations while conducting and concluding the trial.

The Court hereby directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months by fixing short dates and ensuring the remaining witnesses to be examined at the earliest. While ensuring the witnesses to be examined, the coercive steps as prescribed under the law may be adopted keeping in view the guidelines issued from time to time to meet out the situation of Covid-19, if any witness deliberately avoids the trial proceedings. In any case, the trial shall be concluded by 31st of May, 2021.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal fails and deserved to be dismissed and was accordingly dismissed.

 

Judgement reviewed by-Sarita Kumari

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat