http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  399 of 2008

PETITIONER: AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC (CRL.) & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 399                        2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 551 of 2006)

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 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 respondent herein  filed a criminal miscellaneous case before 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 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 also pointed out  that whatever grounds urged in the second bail application could  have been stated in the first bail application 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 parties.   

(4)     A sessions case is pending 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 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.

(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 learned counsel appearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  appellant also pointed out that even against the second respondent  several cases are pending and he had no right to move for  cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant.

(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  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 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.

(7)     The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.