In this bail application, the High Court rejected the plea for enlargement on bail for the applicant facing murder and robbery charges, noting the trial was in progress. However, citing Shailendra Kumar, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Trial court directed to expedite trial and conclude it.
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. - 4669 of 2020
Applicant :- Sameer @ Pahalwan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, 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 Sameer @ Pahalwan seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 135 of 2015, under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C., registered at P.S. G.R.P. Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial in the present case is under progress. The statement of PW-1 has been recorded but the examination-in-chief of PW-2 has not been recorded and he is not turning up for cross examination and the trial court has issued non-bailable warrant for securing his presence. Learned counsel for the applicant further draws the attention of the Court to the order granting bail to co-accused Rizwan passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10972 of 2017, and seeks parity. He further argued that the trial is not being delayed on account of the applicant and the applicant be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 19.11.2015.
Per contra, learned AGA opposes the prayer for bail and argued that since the trial is in progress, releasing the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect in the trial as the applicant may tamper with evidence and pressurize the witnesses.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage since the trial is in progress.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant states that a direction may be given to the trial court for its expeditious disposal. Accordingly, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shailendra
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 655 .
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 5.2.2020 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant who has been in jail since 2015 should be released on bail during the progress of trial.
Whether a direction can be issued to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the pending trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of BiharApplied¶11
Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10972 of 2017Referred¶7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sameer @ Pahalwan
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
