- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This is second bail application. Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 3704 of 2006 has been rejected by this Court on 28-4-2006 after considering the merits of the case.
(2.) HEARD Sri J. S. Sengar and Sri Raghubir Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. In this application a new ground has been taken that the statement of Duli Chand P. W. 5 the witness of the recovery of the dead-body made at the pointing out of the applicant on 23-9-2005 at 5. 30 a. m. has been recorded and the statement of Shiv Charan P. W. 4, the father of the deceased has been recorded which suggest that the recovery of the dead-body was made on 22-9-2005 and not as alleged by the prosecution on 23-9-2005. The statement of P. W. 4 Shiv Narain, and the statement of P. W. 5 Duli Chand have been recorded. The statement of witness Jagdish, P. W. 7 has been recorded, he did not support the prosecution story that is why he was declared hostile by the prosecution. The case of the applicant was distinguished at the time of rejecting the bail application by this Court vide order dated 28-4-2006 on the ground that at his pointing out the dead-body of the deceased was recovered whereas at the pointing out of the other co-accused persons who have been released on bail the dead-body of the deceased was not recovered. According to the statement of the witnesses recorded in the Court. Therefore, he may also be released on bail. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the trial is at the advance stage, it shall not be proper to scrutinise the statement of the witness who have been examined in the trial Court, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. I am of the view that at this stage it is not proper to scrutinise the statement of the witnesses which have been recorded by the trial Court otherwise the trial Court shall be prejudiced. There is no other new ground to release the applicant on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Bail application rejected. .;