Abrar Chaudhary vs State

G.P. Mathur, J.—This is second bail application. The first one was rejected by me on 26.5.1998.

I have heard Sri Somesh Khare for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and G.S. Chaturvedi for the complainant.

Learned Counsel has submitted that the inquest report shows that Zeeshan Ilahi had lodged the F.I.R. but subsequently the name of Zeeshan llahi was struck off and the name of Riyashat was written. He has further submitted that there is interpolation in the crime number and actually the figure 214-A has been written after interpolation. It has also been contended that the F.I.R. could not have been lodged by Riyashat at 2.30 p.m. on 24.5.1997 as he was present in the hospital and had not been discharged from there. The contentions raised by learned Counsel for the applicant have already been considered by me when the first bail application of the applicant was decided and they are not new grounds. Sri Khare has next contended that though the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the applicant on 15.11.1997 had directed that the trial should be concluded within two months and while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 26.5.1998, I had also issued a direction to the learned Sessions Judge concerned to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial earliest but inspite of such directions the trial has not proceeded. It is urged that further proceedings of the trial have been stayed in Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1999 and therefore, the trial cannot be proceeded. According to the learned Counsel the applicant deserves to be granted bail as the proceedings in the trial have been stayed by this Court.

The record shows that the statement of P.W. 1 Riyashat was recorded on 28.5.1998 in which he implicated Mashooq Ali, the then CO. City, Rampur, as having conspired with the accused in commission of the present crime. The D.G.C. (Crl.) then moved an application praying that Mashooq Ali be summoned as accused u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure on 28.5.1998 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application moved by D.G.C. and summoned Mashooq Ali, the then CO. City. Rampur, to face trial u/s 120B, I.P.C. The case was taken up on 18.6.1998 and the learned Sessions Judge issued a direction that summons be sent to Mashooq Ali through Chief Secretary and D.G. Police, U.P. Mashooq Ali filed Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1999 challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which he had been summoned u/s 319. Code of Criminal Procedure In the said criminal revision, following stay order was passed on 11.1.1999:

In the meantime the operation of orders dated 29.5.1998 and 18.6.1998 passed by Sessions Judge Rampur in S.T. No. 403 of 1997 State v. Abrar and Ors., shall remain stayed for a period of three months unless the order is vacated earlier.

On 15.4.1999 the following order was passed in the criminal revision:

Sri S.D.N. Singh requests for time to file rejoinder. It may be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. Stay order dated 11.1.1999 shall continue.

The order passed in the revision shows that it is only the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge u/s 319. Code of Criminal Procedure by which Mashooq Ali has been summoned to face trial u/s 120B, I.P.C. has been stayed and further proceedings in the trial have not been stayed. It is perfectly open to the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the accused who are already before him and separate their trial from that of Mashooq Ali as the order summoning him has been stayed by this Court.

Having given my careful consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not consider it to be a fit case where bail may be granted to the applicant.

The second bail application is accordingly rejected.