Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J. granted bail to the applicant in a case under Section 307 IPC after rejecting two previous applications, relying on Article 21 and apex court precedents. The court also directed expedited trial.
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; trial to be concluded within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14525 of 2018
Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first two bail applications of the applicant were rejected by Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. as His Lordship was then by his orders dated 29.3.2016 and 21.3.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application nos. 11413 of 2015 and 41489 of 2016 respectively, which reads as under :
" Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the role of firing as per statement of the injured has been assigned to the applicant and the coaccused Amar Pal, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned counsel further contends that it is not known that as to who is the author of the injury. Learned counsel has next contended that admittedly, the applicant and the first informant were enemical terms on account of which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 11.09.2014.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that the injuries are on vital part of the body and two persons are alleged to have fired upon the injured and three injuries were sustained by the injured and has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant-
Ranjeet, is hereby rejected."
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
Present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant to enlarge him on bail during pendency of trial in case crime No.54 of 2014 under Section 307 IPC, police station Bhagatpur, district Moradabad.
This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant and the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.3.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant has limited his prayer to the extent that the trial of the aforesaid case may be directed to the decided expeditiously, preferably within the time stipulated by this Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material on record, this bail application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to consider and conclude the trial of case crime No.54 of 2014 under Section 307 IPC, police station Bhagatpur, district Moradabad expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned court."
The new ground on which the the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial, vide this application after the rejection of first two bail applications is that as per statement of the injured, the role of firing has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Amar Pal but it is not known that who is the author of the injury. He next submitted that after passing of more than one and half years only three witnesses have been examined as on date in spite of order of this Court. He further submitted that
applicant who is in jail since 11.9.2014 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the period of detention, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant Ranjeet be released on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Bhagatpur, district-Moradabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the
case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004 , trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 3.10.2018 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail after rejection of previous applications considering the period of detention.
Whether the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within the stipulated period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.Followed¶22
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶26
AIR 2018 SC 2004 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranjeet
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
