Sarvesh and Another vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Applicantsaccused Sarvesh and Manoj, both brothers have come to this Court for Bail. They are accused in Special Trial No. 11 of 2007, State v. Sarvesh Mishra, under Sections 395, 397, 412 I.P.C. and Section 10/12 Dacoity Affected Areas Act, in Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Dacoity Affected Areas Act, Auraiya.

Heard Sri U.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri S.D. Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The charge against the applicantaccused is one of Highway robbery. The Trial is proceeding, and the ground for moving a bail application, pending Trial is that the two witnesses, who are said to have been victim of robbery have refused to identify the applicants accused in Court.

That, however, is not the end of the road. Prosecution evidence has not yet been closed. The assessment of facts, which have emerged in the crossexamination of the two witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) have yet to be made. The mere fact that the witnesses have been declared hostile, does not forclose the possibility of their evidence providing sufficient material for conviction. The Court may also summon such other witnesses as it considers appropriate under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Besides in cases where trial is pending, the order of the Trial Court for bail should not safely be dislodged, unless there are compelling reasons for the same.

Bail rejected.