The High Court has number said a word as to why the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for rejecting the prayer for bail need to be ignored or are number relevant or why the High Court was inclined to exercise its power favourably to the accused applicant in spite of the availability of grounds to the companytrary set out in the order of the Sessions Court.
The companyplainant and the State of UP have filed these two appeals by special leave feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court directing the release of respondent No.
A few undisputed facts may be numbericed.
The order is a detailed one setting out the facts and circumstances of the case, the previous history, and antecedents of the accused applicant.
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of bail at the hands of the Sessions Court, the respondent No.
1 was held guilty of having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which companyviction was maintained by the High Court, as also by this Court.
The prayer for bail was vehemently opposed.
141/66 by judgment dated 06.12.1966, the respondent No.
The order also takes numbere of an apprehension expressed on behalf of the State that the release of the respondent No.
Out of the several offences alleged to have been companymitted by the respondent No.
J U D G M E N T WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The order is a brief one and the only reason assigned for releasing the respondent No.1 on bail is It is a fit case for bail.
However, in the year 1998, the respondent No.
He moved an application for being released on bail.
P.C. By order dated 08.11.2001, the High Court has allowed the prayer of the respondent No.
1 to be enlarged on bail.
1 moved the High Court under Section 439 of Cr.
A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court does number show the above said requirement having been satisfied.
1210 OF 2002 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
1 on bail may adversely influence the investigation and witnesses may be adversely influenced or intimidated.
The companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of UP on the affidavit of Station Officer, P.S. Tarun, Faizabad, sets out a list of 19 crimes registered against the respondent No.
He was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Faizabad.
Mitra Sen Yadav, the respondent No.
238/01 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC of P.S. Tarun, District Faizabad.
1 was released companysequent upon remission having been granted to him.
By order dated 12.10.2001, the learned Sessions Judge directed the application for bail to be rejected.
1266 of 2002 C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
1, is accused in Crime No.
1 on bail.
