Allowed

Vijay Pal and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020BAIL/20083/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a second bail application filed by Vijay Pal and Neelu in a dowry-related case. Finding no fresh grounds for relief, the Court refused bail but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within four months to address the applicants' long detention.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Trial court directed to conclude trial within four months.

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20083 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.

¶6

Applicants- Vijay Pal and Neelu seeks bail in S.T. No.06 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.508 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Talgram, District Kannauj.

¶7

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicants. The first bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.5.2018. Learned counsel for the applicants could not place any fresh grounds on which bail may be granted to the applicants. However, it is stated that the applicants are in jail since 27.11.2017 and the entire evidence has been recorded and he has been informed that the case is now fixed for arguments. Therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses and the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and submitted that the trial of the applicants is at its fag-end and the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any fresh ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicants. The prayer for bail is declined.

¶10

The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11

However, considering the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2017, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.1.2020/ Vikas

Vijay Pal and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pal and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Alias Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Samina Begum and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sajid @ Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehdi Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kesh Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.