This is a second bail application. The court held that no new or good ground was made out for granting bail therefore application rejected Court was directed to proceed with trial with expedition.
Bail application rejected and Court directed to proceed with trial with expedition.
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. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14321 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav,Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant in length and detail as well as the learned A.G.A. for the opposite party.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected, vide order dated 30.1.2019. Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that this Court, vide order dated 30.1.2019 had categorically directed that the trial be concluded within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. It is then submitted that the incident occurred on 19.9.2018. Inquest of the deceased was conducted on 19.9.2018. Thereafter on 19.9.2018, the father-in-law of the deceased submitted an application before the concerned Police Station that his daughter-in-law has committed suicide. Four days thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged on 23.9.2018. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.
So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, it may be noted that from the perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet, it is apparent that the accused himself had not appeared before the Court concerned on a number of occasions and on three occasions, the Court was not available. As such, non conclusion of the trial within a period of six months as earlier directed by the order dated 30.1.2019 cannot be said to be a deliberate non compliance by the Court below.
So far as the second point is concerned, the plea was clearly available to the applicant at the time of argument of the first bail application. Since no new or good ground has been made out to allow the second bail application, the same is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the Court below is directed to proceed with the trial with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019/HSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to conclude trial within six months justifies grant of bail on second application.
Whether any new or good ground exists to allow second bail application.
Bhupendra Singh
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
