Dismissed

Vindhyachal Musahar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2019BAIL/9454/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a second bail application for an offender charged under Section 302 IPC. The applicant cited the pendency of the trial as grounds for bail. The court found no new grounds and dismissed the plea but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months, threatening consequences for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; direction issued for conclusion of trial within eight months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9454 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vindhyachal Musahar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Baijant Kumar Mishra 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.97 of 2016 (ST No.219 of 2016) u/s 302, 201 IPC PS Turkpatti District Kushinagar. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.11.2016.

¶7

The second bail application has been pressed solely on the ground of detention that the applicant is in jail since 27.2.2016. Contention is that in spite of direction issued by this Court to conclude the trial expeditiously while rejecting the first bail application, the trial has not yet been concluded.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶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 may now be concluded positively 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 concerned for the trial to be concluded expeditiously 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, failing which the court concerned will be answerable to this Court.

¶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 :- 5.7.2019 SP

Vindhyachal Musahar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindhyachal Musahar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dulari @ Raj Dulari Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhai Lal Vs Union of India through Ncb Lucknow

Atique Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwakar Yadav Vs State of U.P.