Bail should not be granted without compelling circumstances, especially when trial is nearing conclusion and accused has shown dilatory tactics.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh and Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsels assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.237 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2019, under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 336/34 I.P.C. and 27/30 ARMS ACT , Police Station- Devgaon, District- Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55798 of 2019 and the following order was passed:-

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Before arguing on the bail application, learned counsel for the first informant placed before this court an order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court, wherein it is mentioned that in presence of both the parties after conclusion of arguments on the bail application, the bail application came to be rejected. Thereafter, on the same day, an application was handed over to the Private Secretary of the Court at about 4.45 p.m. requesting for rehearing the matter citing glitches in the video conferencing. The objection was not raised during the course of the argument. The copy of that application was supplied without serving a copy of the same to the learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel for the first informant, so it was observed by that bench that the practice adopted by the learned counsel for the applicant was objectionable and it was found that as the court had expressed its opinion, it would not be proper for the court to rehear the matter afresh and the matter was fixed for 15th September, 2020 before the appropriate court. It was also noted that the matter shall not be treated as part heard or tied up to the bench.

When I went through the record, it was found that there is no bail order on record. It was admitted by both the counsel that though, the order was dictated to the Private Secretary but it was not typed and before the order being typed the application was moved for rehearing of the matter and on that application the above order dated 07.09.2020 was passed.

Thus, it is clear that the bail application was not disposed of and as the bench has been changed and the bail application is being heard afresh, so the application moved in this regard on 07.09.2020 shall be considered disposed of.

With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the first informant, the bail application of the applicant - Rana Pratap Singh is heard afresh.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Rana Pratap Singh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 336/34 I.P.C. and 27/30 Excise Act, Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident is dated 07.04.2019 at 10.00 am, the FIR has been lodged on the same day at 21.18 hours. This delay of 11 hours is not properly explained. As per FIR the present applicant is said to have fired at Anil Singh, which