The High Court rejected a second bail application in a Dowry Prohibition Act case involving cruelty and homicide. The Court noted no new grounds and the gravity of allegations, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings 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. - 3300 of 2018
Applicant :- Aniruddh Narain Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Srivastava,Lav Srivastava,Shri. V.P. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Anshu Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2016 u/s 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Nawabganj District Allahabad. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.3.2017.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record apart from the fact that one of the co-accused has been granted bail. I have perused the said order.
Moreover, looking to the statement of the child and 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 as expeditiously 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.
Order Date :- 18.1.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application should be allowed given the severity of the charges and the child's statement.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial proceedings under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015 (3) SCC 220) · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶11
Hussain and Another v. Union of India (2017 (5) SCC 702) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aniruddh Narain Tiwari
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
