Long detention in jail is not a ground for bail, and the court's discretion to grant bail should not be exercised in favor of accused who adopt dilatory tactics and do not cooperate with the court to ensure expedite disposal of the trial.

Kalimullah Khan,J.: -

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

2. This is second bail application made on behalf of applicant Smt. Champa, mother-in-law of the deceased who is detained in jail in case crime no. 134 of 2011 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Chaubepur, District Varanasi since 25.11.2011. Her first bail application was rejected on merit vide order dated 13.3.2012.

3. This bail application has been pressed on the grounds of her long detention in jail since 25.11.2011 and no progress in the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is a lady and she is languishing in jail since 25.11.2011 and the story of the crime as setup by the prosecution is not worth reliable.

4. By advancing arguments on merit, learned counsel for applicant tried to get this Court indulge in the merit of the case afresh which is not permissible under the law as the merit of the case has already been considered by this Bench while disposing of the first bail application.

5. As regards the contention that there is no progress in the trial, learned A.G.A. has repelled his submission and argued that prosecution has already examined two prosecution witnesses in-chief but dilatory tactics are being adopted by defence as is apparent from the perusal of the ordersheets including order dated 4.4.2014, the certified of which has been filed on record wherein the learned trial court has specifically mentioned that Ishita (P.W. 2) has been examined in-chief and thereafter at least twenty one times the case has been adjourned on the adjournment application of accused persons to cross-examine the said witness who is student in a Graduation Class and her annual examination was scheduled on 10.4.2014. Learned trial court has observed that defence is not co-operating with the trial and that is why cross-examination of the witness is not being completed by the accused. It is a murder case of the daughter-in-law of the applicant. The said murder has allegedly taken place inside the house of the applicant and her dead body was found at the bank of Gomati River. The autopsy shows that deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries viz. incised wounds at her neck and multiple contusions and abrasions all over her body. The blood stained petticoat of the victim and blood stained two sickles were found in the house of the applicant and two other sickles were noticed at near the dead body found at the bank of Gomati River. Applicant is named accused in the F.I.R. Her first bail application has been rejected on merit and there is no fresh point to enlarge the applicant on bail. Long incarceration of accused is no ground of bail.

6. Bail is a discretionary matter but it cannot be exercised arbitrarily rather the law requires that this discretion of the Court should be exercised judicially. If the accused or his counsel adopts dilatory tactics on one pretext or the other and does not cooperate with the court to ensure expedite disposal of the trial the discretion of the court to grant bail should not be exercised in favour of any such accused otherwise it would give a wrong message to the society at large and an encouragement would be gathered that by delaying the trial accused may get bail even in heinous matters like this case of murder and at the same place the other party shall loose the faith in such delivery system of justice. Under these scenario of facts long detention of the applicant in jail is no ground for bail.

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no case for bail is made out. The second bail application stands rejected.