This court rejected a third bail application, finding no new grounds for relief due to the seriousness of the charges. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C., citing Supreme Court precedents on speedy trial.
Bail application rejected, but trial directed to complete within one year.
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. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27684 of 2018
Applicant :- Narendra @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Paramhans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.248 of 2015 u/s 323, 302, 307, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act PS Mehnagar District Azamgarh. The first and second bail applications were rejected by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2017 and 30.8.2017 respectively.
The third bail application has been pressed solely on the ground that the applicant is in jail since 10.1.2016 and in spite of two specific directions issued by this Court the trial has not yet been concluded.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
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.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within one year from the date of production of certified copy of the 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.
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.
It is also being made clear that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of one year, the applicant is at liberty to move a fresh bail application before this Court itself.
Order Date :- 14.12.2018 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted given that the trial has not concluded despite the applicant being in jail since January 2016.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶11
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narendra @ Guddu
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
