In a bail application, the High Court rejected the applicant's plea, citing possession of smuggled gold bars. The court directed the trial to conclude within six months of production of certified copies.
Bail denied; trial 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. - 19153 of 2018
Applicant :- Ritesh Soni Opposite Party :- Union Of India Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Dileep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. The recovery allegedly made from the applicant's possession which has been fabricated by the police which is yet to be connected with the present crime by any cogent evidence. There was no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.2.2018.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant denied having any foreign origin gold bar, but during search some heavy metal and some foreign origin gold bars were recovered from his possession, thereafter
the recovered gold bars and ornaments were seized by the officials, he was in the business of smuggling and hence the applicant's prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the trial court is directed the conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In case the trial of the applicant is not concluded within the period stipulated herein above the applicant may move fresh bail application before this Court.
Subject to aforesaid direction, this bail application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant falsely implicated in smuggling charges regarding foreign origin gold bars.
Whether the case should conclude within a specific timeframe despite the refusal of bail.
Ritesh Soni
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
