- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This is second bail application. The first one was rejected by me on 26-5-98.
(2.) I have heard Sri Somesh Khare for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State and G. S. Chaturvedi for the complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that the inquest report shows that Zeeshan Ilahi had lodged the F. I. R. but subsequently the name of Zeeshan Ilahi was struck off and the name of Riyashat was written. He has further submitted that there is interpolation in the crime number and actually the figure 214-A has been written after interpolation. It has also been contended that the F. I. R. could not have been lodged by Riyashat at 2. 30 p. m. on 24-5-97 as he was present in the hospi tal and had not been discharged from there. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant have already been considered by me when the first bail application of the applicant was decided and they are not new grounds. Sri Khare has next contended that though the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the applicant on 15-11-97 had directed that the trial should be concluded within two months and while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 26-5-98, I had also issued a direction to the learned Sessions Judge concerned to make every possible en deavour to conclude the trial earliest but inspite of such directions the trial has not proceeded. It is urged that further proceedings of the trial have been stayed in Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1999 and there fore, the trial can not be proceed. Accord ing to the learned counsel the applicant deserves to be granted bail as the proceed ings in the trial have been stayed by this Court. The record shows that the state ment of P. W. 1 Riyashat was recorded on 28-5-98 in which he implicated Mashooq Ali, the then CO. City Rampur as having conspired with the accused in commission of the present crime. The D. G. C. (Crl.) then moved an application praying that Mashooq Ali be summoned as accused under Section 319, Cr P. C. on 28-5-98 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the ap plication moved by D. G. C. and sum moned Mashooq Ali, the then C. O. City Rampur to face trial under Section 120-B, IPC. The case was taken upon 18-6-98 and the learned Sessions Judge issued a direc tion that summons be sent to Mashooq Ali through Chief Secretary and D. G. Police, U. P. Mashooq Ali filed Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1999 challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which he had been summoned under Section 319, Cr P. C. In the said criminal revision, fol lowing stay order was passed on 11-1-1999. "in the meantime the operation of orders dated 29-5-98 and 18-6- 98 passed by Sessions Judge Rampur in S. T No. 403/97, Stale v. Abrar and others, shall remain stayed for a period of three months unless the order is vacated ear lier. " On 15-4-99 the following order was passed in the criminal revision: "sri S. D. N. Singh requests for time to file rejoinder. It may be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. Stay order dated 11-1- 1999 shall continue. "
(3.) THE order passed in the revision shows that it is only the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 319, Cr P. C. by which Mashooq Ali has been summoned to face trial under Section 120-B, IPC, has been stayed and further proceedings in the trial have not been stayed. It is perfectly open to the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the accused who are already before him and separate their trial from that of Mashooq Ali as the order summoning him has been stayed by this Court. Having given my careful con sideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not consider it to be a fit case where bail may be granted to the ap plicant.;