This second bail application was rejected as no subsequent development had occurred. However, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months citing Section 309 Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court precedents.
Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six 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. - 37183 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeev Chauhan @ Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is a second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.28 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, IPC, and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baver, District Mainpuri.
This is third bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 20.01.2017, which order was subsequently corrected vide order dated 15.12.2017.
We have perused the earlier two orders by means of which the first two bail applications are rejected and finds that nothing subsequent has been argued nor any subsequent development has been brought on record.
The counsel for the applicant has pressed the third bail application solely on the ground that while rejecting the earlier bail application vide order dated 20.01.2017 a specific direction was issued to the trial court concerned to conclude the trial as early as possible in accordance with section 309 Cr.P.C.
The applicant is in jail since 14.10.2016, however, it has not been disputed that no subsequent development has been taken place, but the contention is that till date even P.W.-1 deposition has not been completed.
In view of the above, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out. Accordingly, the third bail application is hereby rejected.
However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 12.05.2014, 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 :- 1.2.2019 VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite no new developments.
Whether the trial should be concluded within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjeev Chauhan
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
