AKHILESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR.

                                   [2008] 3 S.C.R. 545

 _..
     -.._                    AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH                                A
                                         v.
                       STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR.
                         (Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008)
                                 FEBRUARY 27, 2008
                                                                                 B
                 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN C.J., R.V. RAVEENDRAN
                             AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
. .,.
                   Bail - Sessions case pending trial - Rejection of first
             bail application - Grant of second bail application - Set aside     c
             by High Court - Challenge to - Held: In case of delay in trial
             of the case, accused would be at liberty to file bail application
             and Sessions Court would consider the same on merits.
                    A case was registered against the appellant for the
             offences u/ss 302, 395 r/w s. 120-8 IPC and are pending D
             trial. Appellant's first bail application was rejected and the
..... ~
             second bail application was allowed. In the criminal
             miscellaneous case, High Court set aside the order
             passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail. Hence the
             present appeal.                                                E

                  Disposing of the appeal, the Court

                   HELD: When the matter was pending before this
             Court, the case was adjourned repeatedly with the
       ...   expectation that the important witnesses would be F
 •
             examined by the prosecution and the trial would be
             completed at an early date. The trial is being continued
             and most of the witnesses must have been examined by
             this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge
             is directed to complete the same within three months and, G
             if for the reason, except the non-cooperation of the
             accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the
. "'         appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court

                                           545                                   H
    546       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A for bail and the Sessions Court would consider the same                _,...
                                                                              .
  on merits. (Para 6) [547-F, G; 548-A]
         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 399 of 2008.
B        From the final Judgment and order dated 20/12/2005 of
    the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Case
    No. 2198/2002.
                                                                        T •
         Ram Jethmalani, Lataa Krishnamurthy, S. Balaji,
    Sudhanshu Nath Singh, Madhusmita Bora, S.R. Sharma and
c   Saurabh for the Appellant.
        Dr. R.G. Padia, Ranjit Kumar, lrshadAhmad, R.K.S. Yadav,
    Sushi I Mishra, Lal it Srivastava and K. K. Mohan for the
    Respondents.
D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                       ~      ...
          K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. (1) Leave granted.
         (2) The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 311/2002
  registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 395 read
E
  with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant
  moved bail application before the Sessions Court and the same
  was rejected on 18.10.2002. Thereafter, the appellant moved
  another bail application on 29.10.2002 and the same was
  allowed on 7.11.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the second
F
  respondent herein filed a criminal miscellaneous case before
                                                                      JI..
                                                                             ..
  the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. By the impugned
  order, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions
  Judge granting bail to the appellant. The main reason given by
  the learned Single Judge of the High Court in cancelling the bail
G
  granted to the appellant is that the first bail application was
  rejected on valid grounds and just 19 days after the rejection of
  the first bail application, the appellant herein had no ground to
  urge for bail as there was no change in circumstances. It was       J'

  also pointed out that whatever grounds urged in the second bail
H
               AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TH.                 547
 ..;            DGC(CRL.) & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.)
   ~


           application could have been stated in the first bail application A
           and the reasons given for grant of bail by the Sessions Judge in
           the second bail application were. in utter violation of the settled
           principles of judicial propriety.
                 (3) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
                                                                                B
           parties.
.... -f
                  (4) A sessions case is pefiding trial against the appellant.
           There was an allegation that the appellant herein attempted to
           cause death of one person who was arrayed as a prosecution
           witness and a case was registered against the appellant. It is c
           also pointed out that the appellant herein made an attempt on
           the life of brother of the second respondent herein and for that
           also a case had been registered against the appellant under
           Section 307 IPC. It is further pointed out that a series of crimes
           have been registered against the appellant.                         D
.. -'<
                 (5) Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel
           appearing for the appellant, pointed out that all these cases have
           been registered on account of political rivalry and many of such
           cases were closed by the investigating agency when they were
           found baseless. The list of cases has been furnished by the          E
           learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned
           Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also pointed out
           that even against the second respondent several cases are
       x
 •         pending and he had no right to move for cancellation of the bail
           granted to the appellant.                                            F

                  (6) When the matter was pending before us, we repeatedly
            adjourned the case with the expectation that the important
            witnesses would be examined by the prosecution and the trial
           .would be completed at an early date. The trial is being continued G
            and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this
            time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge, Rai
• -'<,
            Bareli is directed to complete the same within a period of three
            months and, if for any reason, except the non-cooperation of .
            the accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the H
    548        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A   appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for
    bail and, without being influenced by the observations made by
    the High Court in the impugned order, the same would be
    considered by the Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate
    order shall be passed.
B
           (7) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    N.J.                                      Appeal disposed of.




                                                                      ,,;,.   .