Dismissed

Ramsingare v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAIL/20909/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Section 302 IPC, the Hon'ble Court rejected the grant of bail citing the gravity of the offence. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months under Section 309 Cr.P.C., referencing Apex Court precedents, and empowered the applicant to file a fresh application if the timeline is exceeded.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied. Trial to be concluded within eight months; coercive measures directed for witnesses; liberty given to file fresh application beyond extended period.

Ramsingare Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20909 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramsingare Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.299 of 2016 u/s 302, 504 IPC PS Gagaha District Gorakhpur. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2017 with specific direction to the court concerned to conclude the trial within one year.

¶7

Contention in the second bail application is that applicant is in jail since 15.10.2016 and in spite of specific direction to the court concerned to conclude the trial within one year, the trial has not yet been concluded. Further contention is that a cross case has also been filed prior to lodging of the impugned FIR, however the said fact does not find any mention in the impugned FIR. As far as question of contradiction in the statement of PW-1 is concerned, the same has been considered by the trial court. It has not been disputed that PW-1 has not been declared hostile.

¶8

Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶9

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶10

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶11

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶12

Liberty is given to the applicant that in case trial is not concluded within extended period of eight months, the applicant may file a fresh application before this Court itself.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 SP

Ramsingare v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsingare v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Tiwari @ Sonu Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtyar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Vs State of U.P.