A second bail application was rejected. The court noted significant delay in trial proceedings and lack of fresh grounds, directing the lower court to conclude the trial expeditiously while considering references to Supreme Court judgments on trial speed.
Bail application rejected; direction to expedite trial within six months to conclude proceedings promptly.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1703 of 2019
Applicant :- Gopal Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
This is a second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J. on 01.02.2016.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.
On 01.02.2016 this Court has passed the following orders:-
"Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 539 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120B IPC, Police Station Bhawerkol, District Ghaziapur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
From the perusal of the First Information Report, it shows that the accused applicant has been named in FIR. Enmity between the parties is admitted.
I have also perused the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is quite specific.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application, this Court is of the opinion that no ground for enlarging the applicant on bail is made out.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court at this stage.
Prima facie, no case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, if possible preferably within a period of one year in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that more than four years have been passed but the trial has not been concluded. He next argued that at present moment trial court is examining defence witnesses.
Learned AGA opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that no fresh facts have brought by the applicant in the present bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties and looking to seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find that no good ground is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.
The bail application is accordingly, rejected.
Since trial is at the stage of defence evidence and there is chance of early conclusion of trial, as such, court below is directed to decide the trial of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, day to day hearing, preferably, within a period of further six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 SKD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any new grounds are made out for granting bail considering the delay in trial and defence witnesses being examined.
Whether the bail application requires rejection in light of previous decisions and the gravity of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Gopal Pandey
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
