Court rejected the second bail application of applicant Rahat as no new grounds were shown. However, directed discharge of trial as soon as possible to reduce jail time, citing Apex Court precedents, and instructed coercive measures for witness attendance.
Bail rejected; trial to conclude ASAP; coercive measures for witnesses.
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. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10711 of 2018 Applicant :- Rahat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. K. Pandey, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Rahat, praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.892 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.
This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Rahat. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 10.01.2017.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record, apart from the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2016.
Accordingly, the application for second bail is hereby rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the fact that the applicant in is jail since 05.08.2016, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible from the date of production of certified copy of this 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.
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 :- 19.4.2019 VKG
3 issues framed by the court
Whether second bail application of applicant Rahat under Sections 302, 201 IPC, in Crime No.892 of 2016 should be accepted or rejected.
Whether trial of pending case should be concluded as early as possible to mitigate incarceration duration.
Whether coercive measures should be initiated to ensure appearance of absent witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabRelied on¶8
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶8
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahat
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
