Dismissed

Rahmatullah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019BAIL/6131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court rejected the bail application despite counsel's submission treating it as the first effective application. The court noted the serious nature of the offence, the assignment of a role to the applicant, and the support of the medical report. The trial was directed to be concluded within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6131 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahmatullah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Krishna Nand 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.268 of 2013 ST No.45 of 2014 u/s 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC PS Peepiganj district Gorakhpur. The first bail application was rejected for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even though the present bail application has been termed as the second bail application but virtually this is the first bail application in view of the fact that the first bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order dated 7.9.2016 passed by another Bench of this Court in the first bail application and has submitted that defence witnesses have been examined.

¶8

Mr. Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA has strongly opposed the bail prayer with the contention that it was subsequently found that the register was never signed by the accused applicant nor his name or address or his father's name has been mentioned therein as described at page 42 of the second bail application.

¶9

I have perused the FIR which has been lodged by the wife of the deceased. Specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. The medical examination report supports the prosecution case. There is only one gunshot injury.

¶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 application for bail is rejected.

¶12

However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this court before the court concerned 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.8.2019 SP

Rahmatullah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmatullah 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

Abhishek Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Alias Goli Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnabaj Vs State of U.P.

Alok Pandey @ Pappu Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shailesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.