A single-judge criminal court rejected a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Ram Sewak Yadav, citing his criminal history as a ground against release, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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. - 6035 of 2020
Applicant :- Ram Sewak Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Srivastava,Ashwani Kumar Rai,Vijai Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Ram Sewak Yadav , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 298 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 120-B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that co-accused Dhananjay Yadav having an identical role has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3878 of 2020. The copy of the order is taken on record. The attention of the Court has been drawn to para 19 of the affidavit in which it is stated that the applicant is involved in 03 other cases which are stated below:-
i. Case Crime No. 166 of 2003, under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C. / S.T. Act, P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau.
ii. Case Crime No. 115 of 1984, under Sections 147, 336, 427, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau.
iii. Case Crime No. 204 of 2019, under Section 174 I.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau.
The explanation as given in paragraph 19 for the first case is that the applicant after being convicted for 02 years and 06 months with fine by the trial court was granted interim bail who then approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 3149 of 2017 ( Ram Sewak and Another vs. State of U.P. ) in which vide order dated 21.06.2017 the applicant has been released on
bail. The conviction as well as the sentence has also been directed to remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The said order is Annexure-11 to the affidavit. It is further stated that in the second case the applicant has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the trial court in the year 1990. The third case under Section 174 I.P.C. is said to have been falsely lodged against the applicant by the police knowing that he has been admitted in hospital at that point of time. It is further argued that except for the 03 above mentioned cases and the present case the applicant has no other criminal case against him. The applicant is in jail since 04.10.2019.
Per contra learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is a previously convicted person and also involved in 02 other cases apart from the present case. He being a habitual criminal does not deserve to be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the criminal antecedents of the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the same and conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 19.2.2020 AS Rathor
(Samit Gopal,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bail application filed during trial should be allowed given the applicant's criminal antecedents and pending cases.
Whether the trial court should expedite the proceedings under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Sewak Yadav
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
