Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020BAIL/970/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-bench Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application was filed. The single judge rejected the bail prayer noting that charges were framed and the court was vacant, transferring it to a functional court, and witnesses examination was impending. The case was remanded to the trial court with a direction to expedite the proceedings within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to expedite the case within eight months.

Tirari @ Sarjun Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 970 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Tirari @ Sarjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Neeraj Kumar Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.0005 of 2019, under Sections 376 and 323 I.P.C. and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nagfani, District Moradabad.

¶7

This is the second bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 12.09.2019 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since then no any witness has been examined. As per order sheet charge has been framed on 26.02.2019 and court became vacant then case was transferred to the Sessions Court, Court No.2. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.01.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that after framing the charge court became vacant, now the case has been transferred to the functional court and witnesses will be examined soon, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, after framing charge court became vacant and now case has been transferred to the functional court, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail.

¶11

Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Tirari @ Sarjun is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.

¶12

However, considering the fact that charge has been framed on 26.02.2019, the trial court is directed to expedite this case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight months.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 Jitendra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet @ Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Bahadur Saroj Vs State of U.P.