Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3742 (ALL)

Triloki v. State of U. P.

2010-12-15

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2010
Shashi Kant Gupta,J.:- This is the second bail application. The first Bail Application no. 32179 of 2009 was decided on merits on 23.12.2009, whereby the bail application was rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. No ground which was not available at the time of dismissal of the first bail application, has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. 1998(37) ACC 287 and the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarka Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, 2005 (51) ACC 727 (SC) ,the second bail application on the grounds, which were available at the time of dismissal of first bail application, is not maintainable. Lastly, it has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since long, hence on the basis of long detention in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail because due to delay in trial his fundamental right as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that since the trial is on the verge of conclusion, it would not be appropriate to consider the prayer for grant of bail of the applicant, at this stage and the bail application is liable to rejected. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence , he has to remain behind bar. Such detention in jail, even as an under trial prisoner, would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the second bail application is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The parties will not be granted unnecessary adjournments.