Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2019BAIL/5083/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of U.P. rejected the applicant's fourth bail petition and short-term bail claim due to the gravity of the offence and lack of new grounds. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; trial directed to conclude within eight months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5083 of 2019 Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶2

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

¶3

Applicant has moved the present fourth bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2013, under Sections 302, 34, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. The first, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders of this Court dated 1.2.2016, 21.2.2018 and 14.12.2018, respectively.

¶4

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first, second and third bail rejection orders passed by this Court. Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.

¶5

The applicant has also filed a short term bail application seeking short term bail on the ground some disease.

¶6

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and also 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.

¶7

Accordingly, both the short term bail application as well as fourth bail application for bail are rejected.

¶8

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible positively within a period of eight months 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 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

Superintendent of concerned jail along with concerned SSP are hereby directed to ensure that the applicant gets fair and proper treatment, as required and in case it is necessary, the applicant may be referred to district jail as per the Jail Manual.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.5.2019/Kuldeep

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Chhottan 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

Ajay Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Malik Vs State of U.P.

Sangita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Alias Shishupal Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.