In a second bail application, the court rejected the plea noting no new grounds or developments. While dismissing the application due to the offence's gravity, the court directed expeditious trial completion within eight months in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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. - 19339 of 2018
Applicant :- Amir Asrar @ Akku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Imran Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 452 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Puramufti, District Kaushambi. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 22.2.2018 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 9107 of 2016.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
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.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified of the order 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 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 8.3.2019
Kuldeep
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶11
Hussain and Another v. Union of India 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amir Asrar @ Akku
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
