Dismissed

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019BAIL/6758/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Misc. Bail Application was heard by the Hon'ble Om Prakash, VII, J. The applicant, involved in a rape case at Sikandra, Agra, claimed innocence and challenged the medical evidence. The Court rejected the bail application, noting the support of the victim in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the gravity of the offence, while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail of the accused-applicant rejected. Trial hearing expedited to be concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6758 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

This is the application for bail on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay involved in case crime no.718 of 2018 under sections 452, 376-D IPC pertaining to Police Station Sikandra, District Agra.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. He has been falsely roped in this case. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of false facts. Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the medical evidence as well as statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the statement of the witnesses who reached on the spot at the time of incident. It is further submitted that prima facie no offence under sections 376-D and 452 IPC is made out against the applicant. Applicant does not have any criminal aantecedents. He is languishing in jail 11.9.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the F.I.R. The victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. The involvement of the applicant is apparent in the crime. Therefore, no case for bail is made out. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the accused-applicant is rejected.

¶9

However, hearing of the trial is expedited.

¶10

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and to conclude the same expeditiously fixing short dates, if possible, within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either prosecution or the defense.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 / ss

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Pal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Prakash Parihar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Naiem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uma Shankar Dubey Alias Loha Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.