- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This Is 2nd bail application in Case Crime No. 187 of 1993 under Section 302, I. P. C. , P. S. Sipri Bazar, Distt. Jhansi. The 1st bail application was heard by me and after exchange of affidavits between the applicant and the complainant-informants' counsel and perusal of the case diary, I was not satisfied that any case for bail was made out, hence the 1st bail application was rejected on 13th September, 1993.
(2.) THIS 2nd Bail application has been filed after fresh bail application on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 5-2-1994. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the fresh grounds and circumstances seeking bail for the applicant are as under: (i) Rajesh Yadav a recovery witness of the shirt stained with blood alleged to be belonging to the applicant was recovered in his presence. The said witness has filed an affidavit dated 14th December, 1993 before the Sessions Judge/chief Judicial Magis trate, Jhansi in the bail application filed on behalf of the appli cant. The said witness defined to be a witness for recovery of the blood stained shirt: (ii) Ram Sahai Yadav filed an affidavit dated 20-12-1993 in the bail application moved before the C. J. M. Jhansi denied to be the witness of fact that he had seen applicant Mukund Agarwal along-with Dass Ishai and deceased Neeraj together on 15-4-1993 in the Maruti Van while drinking liquor. He denied to have known Neeraj Agarwal deceased and Dhruva Agarwal from before. He denied to have stated any fact before the police. He denied the allegations and facts recorded to have been stated by him to the police contained in the case diary; (iii) The affidavit of Ram Das Prajapati dated 20-12-1993 filed before the C. J. M. Jhansi denied his earlier statements given by him to the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. He denied in the said affidavit that he had never seen any person in Maruti Van taking amongst them selves nor he had seen the deceased and the accused person drinking beer together. Co-accused Dass had given confessional statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. involving himself and the accused. He also is said to have filed an affidavit. He is said to have made the confessional statement under pressure of the police.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment dated 9-11-1993 given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in a case under Sections 279, 338, 427, I. P. C. in which the prosecution case was that the accused applicant while driving away with the Maruti bearing No. UP 93/9115 involved in a car accident injuring Khayali Ram and his sala Munni Lal at 8 a. m. on the same date and near about the same time of occurrence of murder. THE case was tried by the C. J. M. , Jhansi. THE prosecution witnesses were won over and they turned hostile. With the result the C. J. M. acquitted the accused applicant in the case under Sections 279, 338 and 427, I. P. C. by the judgment dated 9-11-1993. THE incident of murder and the accident by car is said to be dated 15/16th April, 1993 and the trial of the car accident case was concluded and the judgment delivered within about 61/2 months of the incident. THE learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party and learned A. G. A submitted that the cases of 1985-86 and onward are pending before the C. J. M. and the other Magistrate at Jhansi and the case which had a bearing on the murder case was got finally decided and the accused acquitted within 6j months of the incident by winning over the witnesses who have turned hostile. It has also been argued that after the rejection of the 1st Bail application by this court, the court below was pleased to grant short term bail (parole) to the applicant and during that period, the accused-applicant and his family members managed to procure by winning over and tampering the pro secution witnesses and got their affidavits filed with the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order rejecting the bail application of the applicant. A perusual of the said bail rejection order shows that the Sessions Judge was making a recommendatory note for allowing the bail to the applicant. The order shows that the Sessions Judge had not granted the bail only on the ground that 1st bail application was rejected by the High Court.;