The Court rejected the bail application. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and to initiate coercive measures for absent witnesses.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.
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. - 19803 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Sarita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Manoj Kumar 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 bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.234 of 2017 u/s 304, 326, 380, 506 IPC PS Rampura District Jalaun.
The record shows that the applicant was not named in the FIR and specific role has been assigned to him. I have perused the dying declaration of the deceased wherein also specific role has been assigned to the applicant.
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, 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 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.
Order Date :- 17.4.2019 SP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sarita
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
