Dismissed

Rajendra @ Bhoora v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAIL/41513/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a second bail application for serum enmity and murder offences. Finding no new grounds for bail and noting the gravity of the offence, the court rejected the prayer. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. if no legal impediments exist.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously within eight months.

Rajendra @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P. — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41513 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra @ Bhoora Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 370 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 2.4.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 10426 of 2017 .

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.

¶9

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.

¶10

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶11

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the 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

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.

¶13

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2018

¶15

Kuldeep

Rajendra @ Bhoora v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra @ Bhoora 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Tiwari @ Sonu Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtyar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Ramsingare Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Vs State of U.P.