The Single Judge rejected a second bail application as filed without new grounds. The court directed courts to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 CrPC and initiate coercive measures for witness appearance.
Bail application rejected. Trial to be concluded expeditiously. Court directed to initiate coercive measures for witness presence.
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. - 33059 of 2018
Applicant :- Lalaram And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahabir Yadav 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 second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 423 of 2016, under Sections 304, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Virindava, District Mathura. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 28.2.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 7117 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 11.1.2019 Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a second application without new grounds.
Whether the trial of the underlying criminal case must be concluded expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 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
Lalaram And Another
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
