Rejected second bail application due to lack of new grounds. Directed trial court to conclude trial promptly citing Supreme Court precedents regarding delay.
Trial directed to conclude as early as possible; bail denied.
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. BAIL 2nd APPLICATION No. - 10718 of 2019 Applicant :- Harendra @ Bholu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is a second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.226 of 2013, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 386, 34, IPC, Police Station Babri, District Shamli.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 16.02.2018.
The counsel for the applicant has pressed this second bail application on the ground that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, a specific and categorical direction was issued to the trial court concerned to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight months, in accordance with section 309 Cr.P.C., but the trial has not yet been concluded. Further contention is that till date none of the prosecution witness has been examined and the trial is not in progressive.
Sri Amit Dage, learned counsel for the complainant has contradicted the above statement made by the counsel for the applicant and informed the Court that at least five witnesses have already been examined and the examination of P.W.-6 is going on and thus it is wrong to say that the trial is not in progressive.
In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that no subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record, hence, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out. Accordingly, the second bail application is hereby rejected. However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.12.2013, 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.
Order Date :- 10.5.2019/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted given the delay in concluding the trial despite specific directions.
Whether there is sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail in a second bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harendra @ Bholu
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
