Dismissed

Karan Singh @ Kakku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019BAIL/46027/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second bail application rejected by the Hon'ble Court. The court found no new grounds relative to the first rejection, noting the gravity of the offences involving sexual assault and protection of children. Consequently, bail was denied. The court directed an expeditious trial conclusion within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and ordered coercive measures for non-appearance of witne

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial directed to conclude within six months. Witnesses' attendance to be enforced.

Karan Singh @ Kakku Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46027 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Karan Singh @ Kakku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2017, under Sections 354A, 342, 376/511 I.P.C. and section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 28.4.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 14975 of 2017.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.

¶9

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.

¶10

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶11

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.1.2019

¶15

Kuldeep

Karan Singh @ Kakku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh @ Kakku 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalaram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Billoo Vs State of U.P.

Bujharat Vs State of U.P.

aniruddh narain tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamlesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Mundi @ Sunita Pasi Vs State of U.P.