Dismissed

monu alias ikram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2018BAIL/2321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a second bail application in a serious criminal case. The High Court rejected the bail plea, finding no new grounds for indulgence. However, the court ordered the lower court to decide the trial expeditiously under Section 309 CrPC to address potential delay.

What did the court decide?

Bail application is rejected at this stage. Application for trial of the pending case be decided expeditiously.

monu alias ikram Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2321 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Alias Ikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 440/2016 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 IPC police station Lisadi Gate, district Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2017.

¶8

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.

¶9

There is no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and also looking to the seriousness of the allegations as made in the FIR, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected, at this stage.

¶12

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India in Crl. Appeal No. 509 of 2017 decided on 9th March, 2017, if there is no legal impediment .

¶13

It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.

¶14

Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2018 Anand

monu alias ikram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

monu alias ikram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samosa @ Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ramvati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajendra @ Gajjoo Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Singh Vs State of U.P.

deepak Vs State of U.P.