Dismissed

Aleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020BAIL/4885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the request for the applicant named in a murder and riot case. The Court noted hostile prosecution witnesses but found the G.A.'s opposition sufficient to deny bail. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. within six months.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4885 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Aleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Aleem seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 121 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident, in which, his brother Asif is said to have died. No doubt the applicant is named in the First Information Report but the presence of the first informant as shown, is false. He further states that the trial in the present case has started being Session Trial No. 116 of 2018 (State Vs. Gufran and others) in the court of Sessions Judge, Hapur and states that Kallu, the first informant and Nizammuddin @ Mizamu have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively but they did not support the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. The applicant is in jail since 18.02.2018.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail and argued that the applicant has been named in the First Information Report. The trial is going on and there are good chances of tampering with evidence.

¶9

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶10

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶11

However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant states that a direction may be given to the trial court for expeditious disposal of trial. Accordingly, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same, strictly

¶12

in compliance of Section 309 Cr.P.C., within a period of six months, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2020 M. ARIF

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Aleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleem 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

Deepak @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kamal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Tiwari Vs State of U.P.