Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 90

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17300 of 2020

Applicant :- Kuldeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saksham Srivastava, Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to direct the court below to expedite the trial of Session Trial No. 21 of 2008 (State Vs. Tanuj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 05 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Quarsi, District- Aligarh (U.P.), pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Aligarh, within a stipulated period.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an injured witness in the present case and the trial is pending since 2008. The incident occurred on 4.1.2007 and on the same day F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons as Case Crime No. 05 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. In the incident, four persons received gunshot injuries and applicant is one of them who has received injuries. Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet against 09 persons and case was committed to the court of sessions and charges were framed on 27.3.2009 under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 120-B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Thereafter, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined and remaining prosecution witnesses and formal witnesses are to be examined. Despite issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant witnesses are not turning up.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submitted that notice is not required to be issued before deciding the present application as the prayer of the applicant is innocuous.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Aligarh is directed to adopt all

¶10

stern action for securing attendance of the witnesses and expedite the Session Trial No. 21 of 2008 (State Vs. Tanuj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 05 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Quarsi, DistrictAligarh (U.P.) and conclude the same expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Vikas

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Faiz @ Faizuddin Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Raj Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bilas Vs State of Up