Dismissed

Prem Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019BAIL/279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 307 and 302 IPC, the High Court held that mere long incarceration is not a determinative ground for bail in murder cases. The application was disposed of, directing the Sessions Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and the Jail Superintendent to ensure accused and witness attendance.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; trial directed to be concluded within six months; jail directed to produce accused and witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 279 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subodh Pandey,Ajay Kumar Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 203 of 2015, under Sections 452, 307 324, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Baniather District- Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

For the purposes of evaluating the prayer for bail which is addressed on this Second Bail Application, the Court notes that the only contention addressed is the long incarceration of the applicant herein. The Court however is constrained to observe that mere long incarceration in matters where commission of offences under Section 302 I.P.C. is alleged has never been recognized as a valid and determinative ground for the purposes of bail. The Court bears in mind the following principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State [NCT of Delhi] , (2018) 12 SCC 129:-

¶8

" 24. As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for grant of bail to the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai case [ Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743] , it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [ Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688]."

¶9

The Court further notes that the prosecution witnesses examined this far have supported the version as set forth in the First Information Report.

¶10

Accordingly while no cause arises for enlarging the applicant on bail, this application shall stand disposed of with the observation that the concerned Sessions Judge shall endeavour to conclude trial with expedition and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and strictly in accordance with the provisions made in Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶11

For the purposes of facilitating the concerned Court adhering to the time-frame stipulated, the concerned Jail Superintendent is also hereby directed to ensure that the accused and all witnesses are duly produced on the dates fixed except in exceptional situations as statutorily envisaged in the Prisoners (Attendance In Courts) Act, 1955 and Section 267 and 270 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶12

In case of exceptional circumstances such as illness and infirmity it is not possible to produce the accused or the witnesses, the Jail Superintendent shall depute a responsible officer who shall affirm an Affidavit before the Court concerned disclosing therein the reasons for non-production.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Arun K. Singh

¶14

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Prem Pal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Pal Singh 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

Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Samrat Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another