In a third bail application, the applicant argued that the trial had not concluded despite a specific direction by this Court. The Court found no new grounds and rejected bail due to the gravity of the offence, while directing the concerned court to conclude the trial within one year.
Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded within one year.
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. - 40213 of 2018
Applicant :- Sanjit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babban Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 833 of 2016 u/s 364, 302, 201, 120B IPC PS Kotwali District Fatehpur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 9.5.2017 and the second bail application was rejected vide order of this Court dated 18.1.2018 .
I have perused the earlier bail rejection orders passed by this Court.
The third bail application is being pressed solely on the ground that the trial has not yet been concluded till date in spite of there being a specific direction of this Court while rejecting the second bail application for the trial to be concluded at the earliest.
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 within one year from the date of 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.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in view of the delay in concluding the trial despite prior judicial directions.
Whether any new ground has been brought forward in the third bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶12
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶12
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjit Yadav
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
