The Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC after finding no probability of absconding or tampering, emphasising the need for speedy trial under Article 21.
Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions.
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. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34291 of 2018
Applicant :- Munna Kol Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that although the applicant is named in the first information report but the prosecutrix Mahila in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-4) has categorically stated that she had left her parental home on her own accord and solemnized marriage with the applicant in a temple. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 11.4.2018, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the
merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Munna Kol , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2018, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P.S. Jugail, district-Sonbhadra on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will
not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004 , trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 10.9.2018 Faridul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving Sections 363 and 366 IPC after more than a year in custody.
Whether the prosecution statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. demonstrates that the applicant is a飞 принципыless to the charges.
Whether the appeal court should direct the trial court to expedite the trial to ensure speedy justice under Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶8
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and othersRelied on¶14
AIR 2018 SC 2004 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Munna Kol
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
