Rajesh Alias Pappu v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second bail application for cheating and forgery charges, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the prayer for bail, finding no good ground due to complicity and severity of punishment, but directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
What did the court decide?
Bail rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20842 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajesh Alias Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Samya Lal Pandey,Vidya Kant Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This is second bail application. The only point raised by learned counsel for the applicant is with regard to detention of applicant over four years and non conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed certified copy of the order sheet of Session Trial showing progress of trial and stating that after completion of statement of PW-1 on 16.1.2017, PW-2 Munnawar Ali was examined on 12.4.2017 and part of cross examination with him was completed on 11.8.2017 and since then no further evidence has been recorded in the trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant has usurped Rs.5,00,000/from first informant by executing sale deed in her favour impersonating himself to be Ram Kailash; that the copy of order sheet filed by applicant shows that cross examination with PW-2 was being postponed repeatedly by accused, on 11.8.2017 last opportunity was given and again on 13.9.2017 cross examination with PW-2 was closed as none appeared for accused for cross examining him; that copy of order sheet also shows that above witness Munnawar Ali with whom opportunity of cross examination appears to have been revived, is appearing on every date, but case is being adjourned again and again at the behest of accused persons or at sometime for few other reasons also, viz P.O. on leave, or lawyers on strike.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in light of the prolonged inactivity in the trial despite the applicant's claim of over four years detention.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Rajesh Alias Pappu
Coram
Harsh Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/20842/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court