This High Court rejected a bail application filed by Upendra Kumar in a case under IPC Sections 363, 376D and POCSO Section 6, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within three months citing Supreme Court principles.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within three months.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25423 of 2016
Applicant :- Upendra Kumar @ Chandu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Kumar, Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Nitin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Upendra Kumar @ Chandu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2015 under Sections 363, 376 D I.P.C. and 6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kampil, DistrictFarrukhabad .
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 6th April, 2015. As such, the applicant has undergone more than four year and six months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that prosecutrix has been examined till date and she has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. Since the trial of the case is at an advance stage and on date prosecutrix has been examined, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to conclude the trial itself instead of deciding the present bail application of the applicant on merit.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, but without commenting on the merits of the case I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 , if there is no legal impediment.
With the aforesaid direction, the bail application is accordingly, disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Priya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the facts warrant enlargement of the applicant on bail in a rape offence case at an advanced stage of trial.
Whether the trial should be expedited and concluded within three months.
Whether there is any good reason to exercise discretion in favour of the accused applicant for bail without commenting on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶10
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Upendra Kumar @ Chandu
State of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
