Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J. rejected the bail application of the applicant in a serious criminal case (murder, rioting). The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Trial court directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
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. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2605 of 2020
Applicant :- Tazim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 386, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Gangoh, districtSaharanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J. vide order dated 9.2.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 11183 of 2016. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed for nonprosecution by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2019. The new ground on which the the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial, vide this application is that initially FIR was lodged against 31 persons but after investigation the names of the 20 persons were dropped and the chargesheet was filed only against 11 persons including applicant. In the first information report only general role was assigned to the accused persons. No specific allegation has been made against the applicant. Further submission is that out of 11 persons against whom chargesheet was filed, ten accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. He lastly submits that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 22.9.2014 and his trial has not yet been concluded, and as such he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during trial PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined and they have specifically nominated the present accused in the commission of crime and firing at the deceased. He next submits that the trial is about to conclude.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this
stage of trial.
However, considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Subject to aforesaid direction, this bail application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.2.2021 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tazim
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
