Court rejected bail application in a case involving abetment to murder. Held no case for bail due to seriousness and gravity. Directs expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and use of coercive measures for witnesses.
Bail application rejected. Trial to be concluded as early as possible. Coercive measures directed for witness availability.
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 APPLICATION No. - 12594 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajkaran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
List has been revised.
Learned counsel for the complainant was not present in the first round even he is also not present in the revise call.
The Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0398 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Asothar, District Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the bail application has been rejected by the court below.
Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been named in the FIR and he has been assigned specific role. The record further goes to show that it is a day light incident and eye-witness account is also present. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and 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.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 , 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Kuldeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail should be granted.
Whether the pending trial be decided expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Whether coercive measures be initiated for witness attendance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶13
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajkaran
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
