Single judge rejected bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a murder and kidnapping charge, refusing enlargement during trial but directing swift conclusion of proceedings.
Bail application rejected; direction to conclude trial within six months.
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.
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3992 of 2020
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rohit Kumar seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 383 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 364 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya.
The version, as per the first information report, is that Ram Vilas the husband of the first informant had gone to the market on 16.6.2019 and subsequently did not return. A search was conducted but he could not be located. On 18.6.2019 , the first informant received an information from Choki, Bandanpur that her husband has committed suicide in the village Jurhalia. The first informant has then named five accused persons namely Rohit (the present applicant), Sunil Kumar, Ram Shankar @ Guddu, Brijesh Kumar and Vimlesh Kumar and stated that they were involved in the incident. The motive, as alleged, is that in the murder of Jeetu S/o Ram Bihari which was committed around six months back Ram Vilas, the deceased was a witness as a result of which the said accused persons are being proceeded against in trial in the said murder.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to the enmity as mentioned. The postmortem indicates only one ligature mark on the body of the deceased, as a result of which, he died. There is no other injury as reported by the doctor on the body of the deceased. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-9 of the affidavit being the order granting bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 648 of 2018 under Sections302, 201 and 363 IPC, P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya vide order dated 10.4.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Auraiya.
Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail and argued that the applicant had a motive to commit the incident. The motive has specifically been mentioned in first information report as the previous case of murder of Jeetu trial is proceeding against the applicant and other co-accused persons wherein the deceased was a witness. The said trial is stated to be pending.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months positively, strictly in compliance of Section 309 Cr.P.C. subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 AKK
(Samit Gopal,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant praying for bail during trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C. deserves to be released on bail.
Whether the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial within a specific period.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Kumar
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
