Dismissed

Anees v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019BAIL/2394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application, the High Court of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh (Saharanpur Bench) rejected the plea due to lack of new grounds. The court directed the trial court to decide the pending case within eight months, citing Section 309 Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court precedents regarding delay.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; direction to decide the trial case within eight months.

Anees Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRthe IMINAL MISC. IInd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2394f 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anees

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Avanish Pratap Singh,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Mr Udai Bhan Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukhtar Alam

¶7

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,Sri K.N.Kesari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the opposite and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶9

This is second Bail application moved on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.265 of 2016 under Sections 147,148,149, 452,307,302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat,District Saharanpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 4.5.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 15729 of 2017.

¶10

The present second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground of period of detention. No subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record. It is contended that the applicant is in jail since 18.5.2016 and till date the trial has not yet been completed.

¶11

In view of the above, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, IInd Bail Application is rejected.

¶13

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, preferably within eight months of production of a certified copy of this order before it in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶16

Order Date:- 24.4.2019

¶17

aks.

Anees v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Rahat Vs State of U.P.

Wajid Vs State of U.P.

Ikrar Vs State of U.P.

Aashu @ Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.