RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is third application for bail on behalf of the appellant Vishram who alongwith seven others was tried by the court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in S.T.No.493 of 1997 (Crime No.140/1994) : State Vs. Ramesh @ Munnu and others and each of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 I.P.C., to under rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323/149 I.P.C. All the sentences were made to run concurrently.
(2.) THE first application for bail was moved by the appellant alongwith memo of appeal and was rejected on merit on 21.12.1999. Thereafter, second application for bail was moved which was also rejected on merit on 21.5.2003. This third application for bail was moved on 26.4.2005 and is pending since then for disposal. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant, assailing the veracity of the prosecution case and evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial, in substance contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity; and prosecution witnesses are not independent and reliable and similarly situated Co - accused have been admitted to bail by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.7.2010 hence on the ground of parity appellant too deserves bail and his long incarceration in jail is per - se illegal as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That the applicant is not in a position to temper with the prosecution evidence and there is no danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; and as such he should also be enlarged on bail pending the appeal.
(3.) THE bail is however opposed by learned A.G.A. by contending in support of the prosecution version that it is a case of heinous offence, wherein two persons were murdered and an attempt was made to commit murder of three persons who also received injuries in the incident. He further contended that it is third application for bail and previous two bail applications were rejected on merit and the grounds now taken by him are not available to him and the applicant has suppressed material facts and does not deserve bail.;