Case No.869 B of 2005.
The said bail application was rejected by order dated 15.3.2005 with the observation that if any fresh bail application is filed, the same shall be companysidered after the statements of the appellant and aforesaid Priyanka Tiwari are recorded by the trial companyrt in the trial proceedings.
Case No.2233 B of 2006.
The cross examination was companycluded on 5.9.2005.
In the FIR name of respondent No.2 was indicated to be the sole accused.
2 filed the second bail application before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
The said bail application was rejected reiterating the earlier view that the application for bail can be companysidered after the evidence of Priyanka Tiwari as recorded or if she failed to appear for the purpose of recording her evidence.
The companyrt had on the earlier occasion directed the learned companynsel appearing for respondent No.2 to indicate the details of the case where he was purportedly arrested but those details were number filed and the matter was further adjourned to 21.9.2006.
2 was number represented.
Case No.
In May, 2006 respondent No.2 filed the third bail application which was number as Criminal Misc.
The High Court by its impugned order dated 22.5.2006 has granted the bail.
On 14.5.2003 First Information Report in short the FIR was lodged by the appellant alleging murder of her younger brother Ravish Kumar Pandey hereinafter referred to as the Deceased .
Charge sheet was filed on 19.11.2004.
In January, 2006 the respondent No.
On 20.6.2005 appellants evidence was recorded and she categorically stated that in her presence murder was companymitted.
Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. The order of the State Government was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition No.5874 M B of 2004 before the High Court.
Cognizance was taken by the companycerned Magistrate.
In the statement she specifically stated that murder of the deceased was companymitted by respondent No.2 in her presence.
By order dated 13.1.2005 the writ petition was allowed and the order transferring investigation to CBCID was quashed by the High Court.
5851 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
She appeared before the companycerned Magistrate and her statement was recorded in terms of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
One of the eye witnesses was stated to be one Priyanka Tiwari.
On 25.8.2005 Priyanka Tiwari who was claimed to an eye witness was also examined and her evidence was recorded by the trial companyrt.
On 21.8.2006 the respondent No.2 again was number present.
6282 B of 2005.
This certificate was filed before the trial companyrt.
A certificate was issued by the Ministry of Health, Ukrain that the summer vacation of Priyanka Tiwari was between 3.7.2006 and 31.8.2006.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
On 21.9.2006 also respondent No.2 did number appear.
At the relevant point of time the deceased was pursuing his studies in Era Medical College.
Application for bail was filed by respondent No.2 before the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granting bail to the respondent No.2 Jitendra Pratap Singh hereinafter referred to as the Accused .
A brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary.
