This court dismissed a second bail application under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, noting the seriousness of the allegations and lack of new grounds. The court directed the trial to be concluded expediently under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Application for bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.
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. - 30698 of 2018
Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava 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 second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.90 of 2016 u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Mauaima District Allahabad. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2017.
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant is the husband and the wife has been done to death within two years of marriage. Moreover, 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 expeditiously, as early as possible 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.
Order Date :- 14.12.2018 SP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a second bail application where the first was rejected and no new grounds have emerged.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akhilesh Kumar
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
