Rajeev Alias Raju Raidas v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Court No. - 8 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8589 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajeev Alias Raju Raidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. This is second bail application which has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.128 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sandna, District Sitapur. First bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated

19.04.2022 passed in Bail No.3770 of 2022 by following order:-

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.128 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sandna, District Sitapur.

¶3Allegation against the accused-applicant is for killing the deceased-Raj Bahadur @Nanhke. In the post mortem, which has been placed on record, following ante moretm injuries were noted on the body of the deceased:- "(i) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of face involving right side of root of nose.

(ii) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left angle of mouth.

(iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right mandible underlined right mandible bone fracture.

(iv) Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left side of neck up to chin, underlined. Large blood vessels, muscles, cut down.

(v) Abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm on upper part of right side chest involving right clavicle."

¶4There are witnesses, who had said that the accused-applicant threatened the deceased to kill him. Knife, weapon of assault, was recovered on the pointing out of the accused-applicant from his house itself. Trial Court has rejected twice the bail application of the accused after considering the facts and circumstances. Trial is going on and P.W.-1 has been examined.

¶5In view thereof, I do not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. This bail application is thus, rejected. However, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. I do not find any change circumstance to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. This bail application is rejected. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2023 prateek High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench