Partly allowed

Ram Kripal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019BAIL/6024/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected third bail application due to gravity of offences and lack of new grounds. Court directed trial conclusion within eight months and issued measures to prevent unnecessary adjournments and ensure witness presence.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within eight months. Coercive measures directed for witness presence.

Ram Kripal Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6024 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kripal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad 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 third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506 427 I.P.C. and section 34 of IPC, P.S. Khamar, District Deoria. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders of this Court dated 27.3.2017 and 19.1.2018, however, while rejecting the second bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial within a period of one year.

¶7

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

¶8

The present third bail application has been pressed solely on the ground that the applicant is in jail since 14.6.2016 and till date trial has not yet been concluded in spite there being specific order of this Court of concluding the trial within one year.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing thereto the certified copy of the order sheet perusal of which shows that unnecessary adjournments are being granted.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶13

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case may now be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in view of the fact that earlier a direction was issued to the court concenred for the trial to be concluded within one year and 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.

¶14

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for

¶15

ensuring their presence.

¶16

The trial is directed not to grant unnecessary adjournments but for exceptional circumstances and in case the adjournment is granted, the reasons must be assigned in the order for granting the adjournment.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 Kuldeep

Ram Kripal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kripal Yadav 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

Sanju Bedia @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Irfanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Azaruddin Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Avinash @ Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P.