Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3483 of 2022

Applicant :- Sooraj @ Bunty

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel 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- Sooraj @ Bunty,

seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with

Case Crime No.91 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352,

302, 201, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Pisawa,

District Aligarh.

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of

the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.6.2021 passed by

this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45787 of

2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that fresh and new

ground is that the applicant is in jail since 11.8.2020. While

placing para no.14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail

application, it is argued that the name of the applicant has come

into light in the confessional statement of co-accused Raju @

Raj Kumar and the role assigned to him is that he met with

Upendra Pandit and went with him in the house of Manveer

Chairman, the said confessional statement is not relevant in the

eyes of law. It is further argued that one FIR was lodged by the

police on 6.6.2020 as a police encounter case being Case Crime

No.222 of 2020 and then another FIR was registered as Case

Crime No.223 of 2020 and in both the cases, the applicant was

granted bail on 2.7.2020 and 3.7.2020 respectively. After

completing the formalities, release orders were issued on

15.7.2020 after which the applicant was released from jail. It is

further argued that in the trial only one prosecution witness has

been examined and the trial is pending till date. The applicant is

in jail since 11.8.2020.

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the

prayer for bail and argued that the first bail of the applicant was

rejected on merits by this Court. The grounds as raised, argued

and pleaded are not fresh and new grounds, the same are prior

to rejection of the first bail application. Except for the period of

detention, there are no fresh and new grounds pleaded and even

the trial is pending. The applicant has criminal history of eleven

cases in which there is one other case under Section 302 IPC

which was consideration for rejection of first bail application.

The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse

effect in trial, hence the present bail application be dismissed.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the

record, it is evident that the bail application of the applicant was

rejected by this Court by a detailed order vide order dated

14.6.2021, the same is quotted here-in-below:-

"Matter taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and

Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure

has been filed by the applicant- Sooraj @ Banti, seeking enlargement on

bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 91 of 2020, under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police

Station Pisawa, District Aligarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named

in the first information report which was lodged by Smt. Seema wife of the

deceased on 07.07.2020 at 18:30 hrs. Learned counsel has then placed

before the Court Annexure-6 to the affidavit being the statement of Veerpal

father-in-law of the first informant, Gaurav and Bhura @ Jagdish and has

argued that even therein the applicant is not named. It is argued that as

per the first information report, Veerpal and Gaurav are the alleged eye-

w