Bail application in a narcotic drugs case under Sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act was rejected as no new grounds were presented. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months and take coercive measures if witnesses fail to appear.
Bail denied; trial directed to be concluded within eight months.
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. - 35155 of 2017 Applicant :- Bhai Lal Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through Ncb Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Nand Singh,Atul Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,A.G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2016, under Sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act, P.S. Industrial Area Naini, District Allahabad. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 24.5.2016 passed in crl. misc. bail application no.17025 of 2016. The second bail application was rejected vide order dated 12.5.2017 passed in bail application no. 37953 of 2016, however, while rejecting the first bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the present third bail application solely on the ground of period of detention as the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2016 and till date not a single witness has been examined.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first and second 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, preferably within eight months from the date production of certified copy of the 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.
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 :- 5.7.2019/Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in the third bail application based solely on the period of detention?
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial of the pending case expeditiously?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhai Lal
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
