This order rejects the applicant's third bail application in a Section 304B, 498A IPC case, noting that new witness statements do not outweigh the gravity of allegations. However, the court directs the lower court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
The bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
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. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31372 of 2018
Applicant :- Shivesh Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anubhav Dwivedi,Ravindra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2016 under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Belipar District Gorakhpur. The first and the second bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 16.1.2017 and 25.1.2018 respectively.
The third bail application is being pressed solely on the ground that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been examined. However, the statement of PW-1 has already been considered while rejecting the first bail application.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible 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.
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.
The District Magistrate and SSP concerned are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses before the court concerned.
Order Date :- 10.5.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in the third bail application despite prior rejections based on the seriousness of the allegations.
Whether to direct the lower court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivesh Tripathi
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
