Dismissed

Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2019BAIL/35072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, Ramesh, filed a second bail application citing a change in the first informant's testimony. The court found no sufficient grounds as other eyewitnesses exist and the trial is near conclusion. The bail application was rejected, but the trial is directed to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35072 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.P.S. Chauhan

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Exemption application is allowed.

¶4

This is a second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0125 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Ghabhana, District Aligarh.

¶5

Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Mohd. Nadeem learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 17.01.2017

¶7

The counsel for the applicant has pressed the second bail application only on the alleged subsequent development that P.W.-1 has been examined, who is the first informant and he has said that he is not an eye witness.

¶8

Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri Mohd. Nadeem learned AGA appearing for the State have opposed the bail application with the contention that there are number of other eye witnesses also and merely because the P.W.-1 has given some contradictory statement will not amount to a subsequent development for consideration of the second bail application. Sri S.P.S. Chauhan has further informed the Court that the trial of the case is on the verge of conclusion and it is hoped and expected that the trial will be concluded with the six months.

¶9

In view of the above, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. However, looking to the fact that the witnesses of facts have already been examined and the applicant is in jail since 27.07.2016, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded as early as possible preferably within six 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. Order Date :- 4.1.2019/VKG

Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Singh @ Gore Lal Vs State of U.P.

Brijmohan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Moolveer Alias Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.