The court rejected the applicant's second bail application in an IPC POCSO case, finding no new grounds. It directed the lower court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 CrPC and SC judgments. Witness presence was ordered to be ensured via coercive measures.
Bail rejected; trial to be concluded expeditiously; coercive measures for witness attendance.
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. - 37225 of 2018
Applicant :- Azad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra,Asha Parihar,Pradeep Chandra 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.204 of 2017 u/s 376,504,506 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 PS Akbarpur District Kanpur Dehat. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.5.2017.
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.
Order Date :- 1.2.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted in a second application where no new grounds or subsequent developments have been brought on record.
Whether the gravity of the offence Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO precludes bail.
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
Azad
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
