HONBLE ASHOK KUMAR,J. - (1.) This is the third bail application filed by the applicant- Vinay Sharma seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 968 of 2013, under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
(2.) The first bail application was rejected on merits.
(3.) The second bail application was also rejected vide order dated 21.12.2015, which reads as follows:- "This second bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 968 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. The first bail application was rejected by Hon. Kalimullah Khan, J. on 12.11.2013. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. The sole submission raised by counsel for the applicant is that the trial of the applicant has already begun and the prosecution witnesses are being examined in the court and the trial is going on. Counsel for the applicant has tried to touch upon the prosecution evidence given in the court in order to show that a case for bail is made out on that basis. The period of detention of the applicant has also been pointed out. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. After considering the submissions made at the Bar and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that in a case of this nature when the first bail application has already been rejected on merits earlier and the trial is already in progress, it shall not be proper to pass any order on merits of the case again on the basis of the statements given in the court. The matter is already within the realm of the trial court now and the accused should get the final verdict with regard to his innocence or guilt from the trial court itself on the basis of thorough appreciation of evidence produced in the trial. Weighing the evidence, analysing the testimonial worth of witnesses and thereby making a judicial assessment of the same can more appropriately be done by the trial court. Going into the intricate details and the subtle appreciation of facts at this stage when the trial is already progressing, are all matters relating to trial. Any order passed by this Court on merits after assessing the testimonies of prosecution witnesses produced in the trial court might seriously impair the independent dispassionate assessment of the trial court. This Court, therefore, abstains to pass order on the point of bail on that basis at this stage of the trial, lest it may cause prejudice to either side. In a case of this gravity along with the nature of evidence which is available on record against applicant, the detention of the applicant can also not be said to be so long drawn out which may constitute a legitimate ground enough to set him at liberty or may persuade the Court to grant him bail on that basis. In the aforesaid background, the second bail application stands rejected. 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. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible." ;