Third bail application in a murder case was filed by Ganesh Chaudhary. The High Court, noting strong motives and prior rejections, rejected bail but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.
Bail rejected; Trial directed to conclude within three months; Applicant granted liberty to renew bail prayer if trial delayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16504 of 2020
Applicant :- Ganesh Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Ram Shish Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
The Court convened through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Narayan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and has come up before this Court in the fresh cause list today on the basis of an urgency application.
The earlier two bail applications of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.D. Khare (as he then was) vide orders dated 25th May, 2016 and 22nd December, 2017. Hence this third bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant and the same has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 14th August, 2020.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.12.2015 but till date the trial has not yet been concluded while the same was expedited by the earlier order dated 22.12.2017. The counsel for the applicant has pointed out that till date the statement of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem has not been recorded.
The learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the two earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits. The deceased was the neighbour of the applicant. The motive which have been
suggested for the commission of crime appears to be a strong one. As per the post mortem report she was strangulated to death. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any ground to enlarge the applicant-Ganesh Chaudhary on bail involved in Case Crime No. 629 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gahamar, District Ghazipur. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the said period as stated above, the applicant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the trial court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 14.8.2020 VMA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant given the pendency of the trial and lack of certain critical statements despite earlier rejections
Whether the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial within a specified timeframe to facilitate future bail consideration
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganesh Chaudhary
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
