RAKESH TIWARI, J - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karuna Nand Bajpai, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused appellant, as the prayer for bail having been earlier rejected on merits vide order dated 22.8.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon. Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon. Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Verma. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has once again tried to persuade us to reconsider the merits of the case and has tried to assail the veracity of the prosecution case as a whole. Arguments like the absence of motive and some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the medical evidence have also been pointed out. Once again the plea of false implication due to enmity has been emphasized by the counsel for the accused applicant.
(3.) A lot of emphasis has been given to the fact that the accused is in jail since 29.7.2005 and that though at the time when second bail application was moved only a period of three and a half years had passed but now more than 4 years have elapsed since his detention in jail. Some noteworthy cases relied upon by the counsel for the appellant accused are as under: (I) (1978) 1 SCC-579, Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P.; (II) AIR 1977 SC- 2147,Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (III) JT 2001 (4) SC-40, Smt. Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P. It has been canvassed before us that the pendency period of the appeals in this High Court is unusually large and there is hardly any possibility of the appeals being taken up in near future or in a measurable distance of time. In such a situation the accused must be released on bail after reconsidering the merits of the case. It has also been argued that in case the accused is acquitted in the last, there will be no justification for his incarceration during the period of the pendency of the appeal. The constitutional rights of accused to life and liberty have also been highlighted.;