This second bail application was rejected due to the seriousness of the offences and lack of new grounds. However, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months and apply coercive measures for witness attendance.
Bail application rejected; direction to conclude trial within eight months and ensure witness presence.
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. - 19748 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra 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. 1615 of 2014, under Sections 364, 328, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 8.3.2018 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 19034 of 2015, however, while rejecting the first bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial within a period of one year.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
It is contended that in spite of specific order of this Court dated 8.3.2018, till date not a single witness has been examined and the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2014.
However, it has not been disputed as to whether the order dated 8.3.2018 was filed before the court concerned or not.
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 eight months from the date 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.7.2019/Kuldeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a second application given the grave nature of the allegations and lack of new grounds.
Whether the trial court must expedite the trial after a direction from the High Court.
Whether coercive measures should be initiated if witnesses fail to appear.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 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
Ramesh
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
