dhuru v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second bail application, the court rejected the request for enlargement on bail, noting no new grounds were presented. However, directing speedy trial per Section 309 Cr.P.C. and two Supreme Court precedents, the court ordered the pending case to be concluded as early as possible.
What did the court decide?
Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded early under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2761 of 2018 Applicant :- Dhuru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Raj Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Mr Raj Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is a second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2016, under Sections 354, 376, IPC, and 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chhatari, District Buland Shahar.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 07.04.2017.
The counsel for the applicant has pressed this second bail application only on the ground of detention of the applicant, however, perusal of record shows that no subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record. Hence, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 07.04.2017, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible from the date of 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.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who has been in detention since 07.04.2017 without any new grounds.
Whether the pending trial should be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Dhuru
Coram
Vipin Sinha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/2761/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court