Dismissed

Rahul (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022/5765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 12 considered a second bail application for an accused in a murder of three females case. The court rejected the plea due to the heinous nature of the crime, though it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial proceeding directed with a one-year completion directive.

Rahul (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5765 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Gupta,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate on this second application for bail and gone through the entire record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accusedapplicant seeks bail in FIR No.011 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 376/34 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Hargaon, District Hardoi.

¶7

3.The first bail application of the accused-applicant was rejected by this Court vide detail order dated 11.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5334 of 2018 along with bail applications of two coaccused.

¶8

The applicant is one of the accused, who allegedly brutally killed three females, mother and her two minor daughters. The accused-applicant's presence, during commission of offence, and arranging Xylo Car through which dead-bodies were disposed of, disclosed by the main accused, Naveen Gupta, in his confessional statement. Trial has progressed inasmuch 9 witnesses of fact have been examined.

¶9

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, submits that so far 9 witnesses of fact have been examined in the Court and have not alleged any role played by the accused-applicant in commission of the offence.

¶10

However, considering heinousness of the offence and the fact that the accused-applicant is one of the 5 accused, who are alleged to have committed gruesome murder of three persons, mother and her two daughters, this Court does not find it a fit case for enlarging the accusedapplicant on bail at this stage.

¶11

7. Rejected.

¶12

However, learned Trial Court should proceed with the trial proceedings and conclude the trial at an early date, preferably within one year.

¶13

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court by the Registry for compliance forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.6.2022

¶15

MVS/-

¶16

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.06.06 15:18:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Rajnish Lodh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Smt. Pushpawati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Manish Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moti Lal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijay Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Mohsin and Others Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.and Others