Hon'ble Court rejected second bail application in serious offence but directed lower court to conclude trial within eight months citing Apex Court principles on timely disposal.
Bail application rejected; direction to lower court to conclude trial within eight months; liberty to file fresh bail application if delay occurs.
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. - 34940 of 2018
Applicant :- Harnarayan Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha 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.98 of 2012 u/s 364-A, 302, 201 IPC PS Sakrar District Jhansi. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 2.5.2017, however, while rejecting the first bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial within a period of eight months.
It is contended that the trial has not yet been concluded till date in spite of there being a specific direction of this Court for the trial to be concluded within eight months and the applicant is in jail since 24.11.2012.
Sri R.K. Maurya, learned AGA for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that recovery of the dead body was made from the Aagan of the applicant and thus, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
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 may now be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in view of the fact that earlier a direction was issued to the court concerned for the trial to be concluded within eight months and 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.
Liberty is given to the applicant that in case trial is not being
concluded within the said extended period of eight months, he may file a fresh bail application before this Court itself.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted given the delay in concluding the trial despite earlier court directions related to the gravity of offences?
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specified time frame?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶12
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶12
2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harnarayan Kushwaha
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
