SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Aditya Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Sudheer with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 185 of 2014, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Bhagatpur, District - Moradabad, during pendency of trial.
(3.) This is the second bail application. On 17.09.2015, the first bail application was rejected by the following order: "Court affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today in Court, is taken on record. This bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him in case crime no.185 of 2014, under sections 147,148,149,323,336,302 IPC, P.S. Bhagatpur, District Moradabad. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no occasion for the deceased to visit the house in the night where the applicant was living with is family. The offence was committed by the applicant due to sudden provocation because the applicant seen the deceased in compromising position with his wife. On the basis of the F.I.R. it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the dispute was with respect to the property distribution belonging to the father of the applicant. He has denied the prosecution story and submitted that on the basis of the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Saroj according to which the deceased was confined to his share. There was not motive of the applicant to commit the murder of his own brother. Therefore, the applicant who is in jail since 16.9.2014 deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that the direct role of firing has been assigned to the applicant. The post mortem examination report also reveals the fire arm injury on the person of the deceased. Therefore, his bail application deserves to be rejected. Considering the points pertaining to the nature of accusation, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and severity of punishment raised as above by the learned counsel of both the sides and on perusal of record, the Court is of the view that the bail application deserves to be rejected. The bail application is accordingly rejected. The trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. The office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court concerned within a week." ;