In a second bail application under section 302 IPC, the High Court rejected the plea despite new evidence showing the victim's wife did not support the prosecution, citing the gravity of the offence and lack of supervening circumstances.
Bail application rejected; trial concluded within eight months directed.
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. - 63
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36781 of 2017
Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This is the second bail application, the first one was rejected by this Court on 03.7.2017.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 144 of 2015, under section 302 IPC, police station Ahmadgarh, district Bulandshahr, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
The only new ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that after the rejection of first bail application, the evidence of PW-2, Smt. Usha Rani, wife of the applicant has been recorded in which he has not supported the prosecution story.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail and submits that no supervening circumstance has been put forth.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 12.1.2018 Ishrat
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the gravity of the charge under section 302 IPC and lack of supervening circumstances in new evidence.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within eight months to prevent unnecessary adjournments.
Whether the rejection of the earlier bail application bars the grant of bail in this subsequent application.
Yogesh
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
