Pratyush Kumar, J. - (1.) This is the fourth bail application moved on behalf of the accused applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court's order dated 1st October, 2012 for want of prosecution. The second bail application was rejected on merits by this Court's order dated 8th May, 2014. The third bail application was rejected on 17th April, 2015.
(2.) Before noticing rival contentions, I think that reproduction of order dated 8th May, 2014 would be necessary for better understanding of the matter. The said order is quoted hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 34 of 2012, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Kaiserbagh, District-Lucknow. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected as not pressed. It is a case of murder. It is submitted that in this case the accused-applicant was named in the F.I.R. though as per the F.I.R. no directed evidence was mentioned in the F.I.R. It was alleged by the complainant that his son Rajat Mishra had gone with the present accused-applicant for marketing at about 8 p.m. and present accused-applicant made a phone call to the complainant that some person have murdered Rajat Mishra in his car and he is in Trama Center Hospital. During investigation evidence was found that the applicant was the person who committed this murder in the city of Lucknow. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that some of the witness examined by the trial Court and they have not supported the prosecution story. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that several other witnesses are yet to be examined. In view of the above and also considering the fact and the seriousness of the offence and the evidence available against the applicant, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that for the last one year no witness has not examined and the applicant is langushing in jail. In the interest of justice, learned trial court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him, subject to full co-operation of the applicant."
(3.) The order dated 17th April, 2015 was passed with the observation that no new ground was made.;