Criminal Misc. Bail Application rejected on seriousness of allegation. Directed trial court to conclude trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and ensure witness presence per Supreme Court precedents.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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. - 43300 of 2017
Applicant :- Ritesh Tokas @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Kushwaha,Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned A. G. A. for the State as well as Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.148 of 2017 u/s 302 IPC PS B.B. Nagar District Buland Shahar.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged eye witness to the incident has enmity with the applicant. Reliance has been placed on the statement of the doctor to the effect that it is not a case of gunshot injury.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complaint have opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that the applicant has been named in the FIR. It is a day light incident. Eye witness account is present. As far as statement of the doctor is concerned, the same is to be considered by the trial court for its ramifications.
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 :- 17.7.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the trial of serious offences should be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabExplained¶11
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaExplained¶11
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
Ritesh Tokas @ Chhotu
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
