Held that second bail application is rejected as no new grounds exist. However, directed trial to conclude within eight months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. citing Vinod Kumar and Hussain cases.
Trial to be concluded within eight months; liberty granted to file fresh bail application.
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. - 31915 of 2018 Applicant :- Ajay Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Ajay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit file today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, 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.24 of 2014, under Section 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Atarsuiya, District Allahabad.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 13.01.2017.
The second bail application has been pressed solely on the ground of detention. No subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record. The applicant is the husband. Death is within seven years of marriage in the house of husband under unnatural circumstances. The cause of death is burn injury. The body of the deceased was found in the bathroom.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of indulgence has been out.
Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, looking the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since the 25.02.2014, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible, preferably within eight months, 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.
In case the trial of the case is not concluded within a period of eight months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order, liberty is given to the applicant to file a fresh bail application before this Court itself.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail be granted on account of prolonged detention without pressing new grounds.
Whether the trial of the pending case shall be concluded within a specified period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabExplained¶10
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaExplained¶10
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Sahu
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
