Dismissed

Anil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018BAIL/3581/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant sought to enlarge him on bail in a case involving death by knife and unspecified injuries. The High Court observed that the trial was incomplete after nearly three years and that witnesses should not hinder the expeditious conclusion. However, the Court did not find it appropriate to grant bail, rejecting the application.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within five months.

Anil Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3581 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bashisth Narain Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri V.K. Sharma for the State; and perused the record.

¶4

This is a second bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 1031 of 2016, under Sections 304, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶5

The first bail application of the applicant, Bail Application No. 44062 of 2016, was rejected by a detailed order dated 17.12.2016 after noticing that the deceased was medically examined and before his death, he had given a statement, making specific allegation against the applicant, of causing injury to him by knife. The deceased had suffered three sharp cut wound injuries on his body; two were on the abdomen and the third was on the head. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the death was as a result of shock and haemorrhage on account of anti-mortem injuries.

¶6

The second bail application has been filed primarily on the ground that the applicant has suffered incarceration since 09.11.2015 and, till date, the trial has not yet been concluded.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for bail and has submitted that since the statement of the deceased, while he was alive, would now be read as dying declaration, therefore, it is not a fit case where bail prayer of the applicant should be considered because specific role has been assigned to the applicant in causing fatal to the deceased.

¶8

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant. The second bail application is rejected .

¶9

However, it is observed that the trial court would endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of five months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments.

¶10

It is made clear that if the witnesses or the other co-accused are not cooperating in the conclusion of the trial, in absence of any legal impediment in doing so, then the trial court shall not hesitate in taking coercive steps against the witnesses and co-accused to ensure completion of the trial.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.4.2018/Sunil Kr Tiwari

Anil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. E.C.F. Pariyojna, Ghaziabad Vs Late Krishna Pal SinghShishodia and other

Surendra Mishra and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Usman Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

F.C.I. Mazdoor Sangh and Others Vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Kartikeya Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Umaid Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another