This third bail application for an accused in a POCSO and rape case was rejected as no new grounds were raised. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within six months.
Bail application rejected; Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously within six months.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27930 of 2022
Applicant :- Sarvesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sarvesh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.320 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Sections 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police StationKunwargaon, District- Budaun, during the pendency of trial. His first and second bail applications were rejected by Hon'ble Mr. (Retd.) Justice Harsh Kumar vide orders dated 2.11.2017 and 13.9.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.41287 of 2017 and 8471 of 2018, respectively.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that despite the orders passed in first and second bail applications for early conclusion of trial, the same has proceeded at a snail's pace. He has further submitted that period of incarceration of the applicant with effect from 03.10.2016 may be considered in view of the fact that there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial in near future and if he is released on bail, there is no apprehension of him absconding or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel has also stated that since this is the third bail application, therefore, he cannot raise any ground which could have been taken at the time of first and second bail applications. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
applicant shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.
Per contra, Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by stating that this is the third bail application and on the point of long incarceration, he has stated that the maximum punishment for the offence u/s 376-D IPC is life imprisonment. He has further stated that no new ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the present bail application may be rejected.
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail as no new ground for bail could be indicated by the counsel for applicant.
In view of the above, the bail application is rejected.
However, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, unless there is no legal impediment, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.9.2022 Siddhant
Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.09.13 18:30:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in the third application given long incarceration but no new grounds.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial following the High Court order.
Sarvesh
State Of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
