Partly allowed

Anand Tiwari@Nandu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019BAIL/40635/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected applicant's second bail application without expressing opinion on merits due to lack of fresh grounds. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and expedite witness examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within six months expeditiously.

Anand Tiwari@Nandu Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40635 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anand Tiwari@Nandu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.

¶6

Applicant- Anand Tiwari @ Nandu seeks bail in Case Crime No. 667 of 2017, under Sections 376, 507 I.P.C., Sections 3 & 5A POCSO Act, Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 9.7.2018 mainly considering the fact that the the prosecutrix is aged about 14 years as per her school records and she has specifically alleged that the applicant had committed rape upon her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in fact no such incident has taken place and in this behalf he has placed certain documents which in my opinion cannot be examined or looked into at this stage. It is next contended that despite issuance of bailable warrants on 7.6.2019 the prosecutrix and other witnesses are not turning up as reflected from the ordersheet.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perusing the record, I do not find any fresh ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶10

The second application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11

However, considering the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.7.2017 and the witnesses are not turning up for their deposition and till date only one witness has been examined, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of

¶12

aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law on day to day basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

The trial court shall be at liberty to take all coercive steps against the witnesses, if they are not appearing before the court despite issuance of summons.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Vikas

Anand Tiwari@Nandu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Tiwari@Nandu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoj Ahmad Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir @ Sagir Mev Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Gond and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Pandey @ Anoop Vs State of U.P.

Shilendra Vs State of U.P.