Dismissed

Pankaj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020BAIL/32030/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected a second bail application under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, finding no case for bail. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months of the certified order's production, considering the lockdown delay and late charge framing.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32030 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Lal Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

This is a second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 2^nd December, 2019.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1174 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Walterganj, District Basti.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of the first bail application near about one year has been elapsed and only charge against the applicant has been framed on 4.11.2020. He submits that trial could not proceed, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the prayer and submits that due to lock down proceedings in the trial court could not proceed. Now charge has been framed and trial court has started functioning, therefore, trial court may be directed to conclude trial within specified time.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find a case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly the bail application is rejected .

¶12

However, after perusal of the order-sheet of trial court it is found that due to lock down, case could not proceed, but now as stated charge has been framed on 4.11.2020 which indicates that now Court is functioning, therefore, in view of the rejection of bail application vide order dated 4.11.2020, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Ravi Prakash

Pankaj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Singh 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

Chintamani @ Babbu @ Heeramani Bind Vs State of U.P.

Tirari @ Sarjun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohit Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Husain Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another