Dismissed

Akhilesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019BAIL/4922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the second bail application for the applicant in a murder case. Due to the gravity of the charge, bail was denied. However, considering prolonged detention, the court directed the trial to be concluded within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C., utilizing a Supreme Court principle on delayed trials.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial to conclude within one year pursuant to Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4922 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar, , Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Anjani Kumar Tripathi,Maruti Kumar Tripathi,Rajiv Lochan Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant is also taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State as well as Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.1853 of 2016 u/s 302/34 IPC and 3/25 arms Act PS Kotwali Khalilabad District Sant Kabir Nagar. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.5.2017.

¶8

The first bail application was rejected by this Court solely on the ground that the main role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant in the statements of Anand Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Suresh Gupta and also in the statements of eye witnesses namely Majiburrahman @ Majju and Sunil.

¶9

Contention of Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, the first informant has been examined as PW-1 and he submits that even though PW-1 is in constant touch with the deceased as well as the aforesaid persons and he knows that the aforesaid persons are familiar with him, but he has not named them in the FIR as well as before the court concerned. Nevertheless the fact remains that Anand Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Suresh Gupta, Majiburrahman @ Majju and Sunil have not been examined as on date and thus, apparently no subsequent development has taken place.

¶10

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.

¶11

Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected.

¶12

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, 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 this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down

¶13

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.

¶14

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the District Magistrate and the SSP concerned are directed to ensure their presence before the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 SP

Akhilesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Singh 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

dhuru Vs State of U.P.

Ramjeet Bind Vs State of U.P.

Harendra @ Bholu Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Kamesh @ Chini Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.