The court emphasized the importance of expeditious trial conclusion and considered the criminal history of the applicant in rejecting the bail application.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rahul Tiwari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 66 of 2021, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at P.S. Aliganj, District Etah.

3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21222 of 2021 (Rahul Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in jail since 27.02.2021. It is argued that the trial in the present case has not yet started. It is further argued that the applicant is neither leader of any gang nor any member of any gang. It is further argued that co-accused Monu Katheriya, Abhay Dixit, Manu Gupta, Aman @ Amar @ Bhura, Mithun Kashyap, Krishna Gautam and Rohit Kori have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 23.10.2021, 21.12.2021, 13.12.2021, 28.06.2021, 05.10.2021, 17.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41526 of 2021 (Monu Katheriya Vs. State of U.P.), 46545 of 2021 (Abhay Dixit Vs. State of U.P.), 42183 of 2021 (Manu Gupta Vs. State of U.P.), 21092 of 2021 (Aman @ Amar @ Bhura Vs. State of U.P.), 36025 of 2021 (Mithun Kashyap Vs. State of U.P.), 37270 of 2021 (Krishna Gautam Vs. State of U.P.) and 38017 of 2021 (Rohit Kori Vs. State of U.P.). Copy of the said orders have been Annexued as Annxure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.02.2022.

5. It is further argued while placing para 7 of the judgment in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another : 2020 (11) SCC 648 that the Apex Court has stated that the criminal cases pending against the accused cannot themselves be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. Further, the judgment in the case of Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of M.P. : 2015 (11) SCC 502 para 12 has been placed before the Court and it is argued that the Apex Court has held that delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not concluded within a reasonable time. It is argued that as such looking to the facts of the case and the judgment of the Apex Court, the applicant be released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order passed by this Court. It is argued that the criminal history of the applicant was considered by this Court while deciding the first bail application. It is argued that no fresh and new ground on merits has been placed before the which would call for interference at this stage. It is further argued that since the applicant has criminal history, release on bail may have an adverse effect in the trial and there are chances of his absconding also.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2021. The said order is extracted herein-below:-

"Matter taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Mrs. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rambharat, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 66 of 2021, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Activities) Prevention Act, 1986, registered at P.S. Aliganj, District- Etah.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the ap