In this bail application, the High Court rejected the second request for bail, noting that mere trial delay is insufficient. The court directed the Trial Court to expedite proceedings.
Bail discarded; Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21674 of 2019
Applicant :- Subhranshu Singh @ Shibbu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan,Lav Srivastava,Renu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1.Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anshul Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3.This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2018, under Sections 386, 504, 506, 507, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.
4.The first bail application had been rejected by means of an order dated 06-12-2018 passed by this Court by observing that Rs. 47 lacs have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons, which amount had been released in favour of the informant and Rs. 8 lacs were recovered from the possession of the applicant.
5.Along with the supplementary affidavit filed today, a copy of the order-sheet of the Trial Court has been annexed, which indicates that the statement of PW-1, the informant, was recorded on 14-12-2018 and since then the case is being adjourned on one pretext or other and the trial has not proceeded any further.
6.The first bail application of the applicant was rejected after discussing the facts of the case and after recording cogent reasons for rejection of the bail. There is nothing on record that the applicant has moved any application for expediting the proceedings of the trial. Moreover, mere delay in disposal of the case cannot be a ground to release the accused person on bail and the bail application has to be decided keeping into consideration all the relevant factors, including the nature of accusation and material relied upon by the prosecution.
7.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant to release him on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
8.However, since prima facie it appears that the trial is not being proceeded expeditiously, I direct the Trial Court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 13.10.2022 pks
Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.17 10:15:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail considering the delay in trial proceedings.
Whether mere delay in disposal of the case constitutes a ground for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhranshu Singh @ Shibbu Singh
Subhash Vidyarthi
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
