Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2427 (ALL)

Photo Banjara v. State of U. P.

2015-08-14

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1792A/2007, u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Dharmsinghwa, District-Siddharth Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused who faced the trial in the case have already been acquitted, and therefore, the applicant should also be released on bail and his bail ought not to have been rejected by the court below. Further submission is that actually the applicant did not have any knowledge about this case in which he was wanted and that is why he never surrendered and it was only when the police arrested him, he came to know about the case and the fact that the same was pending against him. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the applicant has been absconding since 2007 while the other co-accused persons were facing trial during this period and it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the applicant to evade the process of law and not to submit to the jurisdiction. Further submission is that it is impossible to believe that the applicant for all these several years could not know the prosecution going on or that he never knew that a case of murder is pending against him. Learned A.G.A. emphasized that the applicant is a named accused in the F.I.R., and therefore, it is a very incredible submission raised on behalf of the applicant that he had no knowledge about the case which was pending against him. Submission is that whatever be the fate of the trial but nobody can afford or be allowed to evade the process of law for any reason and the prolong history of absconding, which is apparent on the face of record, does not entitle the applicant to be released on bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same. 7. The explanation submitted by the counsel for the applicant is incredible and cannot be accepted and an accused having such a prolong history of fleeing away from the course of justice without any convincing? explanation or a justifiable cause cannot now be trusted for the purposes of bail. 7. The explanation submitted by the counsel for the applicant is incredible and cannot be accepted and an accused having such a prolong history of fleeing away from the course of justice without any convincing? explanation or a justifiable cause cannot now be trusted for the purposes of bail. The facts and circumstances of the case are such that it may be too hazardous to release the applicant on bail. 8. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case and specially keeping in view the fact of his remaining a fugitive of law for a prolix span of time, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.