Dismissed

Sumodh Alias Neelu Nagaich v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018BAIL/29267/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench rejected a second bail application due to lack of subsequent development, as the original complaint remained intact despite the prosecution witness turning hostile. However, court directed expedited trial within eight months citing delay in incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected but trial directed to conclude within eight months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Sumodh Alias Neelu Nagaich Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29267 of 2018 Applicant :- Sumodh Alias Neelu Nagaich Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Prateek Samadhiya,Siddharth Niranjan,Vinay Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. Niranjan, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri R. K. Maurya, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

This bail application moved on behalf of applicants praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.685 of 2016, under Sections 114, 307, 302, 201, 34, IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

¶6

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 07.04.2017.

¶7

The counsel for the applicant contended that the subsequent development in the present case is only to the effect that the star witness i.e. the injured witness has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile.

¶8

The counsel for the complainant has opposed the second bail application with the contention that never the less the first informant remains intact and he has neither been declared as hostile nor can it be said that he has not supported the case of prosecution.

¶9

In view of the above, no subsequent development has been brought on record, hence, there is no ground for interference in this second bail application.

¶10

Accordingly the second bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶11

However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2016, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible preferably 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.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 VKG

Sumodh Alias Neelu Nagaich v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumodh Alias Neelu Nagaich 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

Rajendra @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Ramsingare Vs State of U.P.

Amit Singh @ Gore Lal Vs State of U.P.

Narendra @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.