Mannu @ Lokesh v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second bail application, the court held that since the trial had already commenced and witness testimonies were being evaluated, it should abstain from making findings on merits to preserve the trial court's independent assessment. The bail application was rejected, though the trial period was directed to be concluded within four months.
What the court decided
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43930 of 2021
Applicant :- Mannu @ Lokesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Chandra,Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2396 of 2019 was rejected by me on merits vide order dated 15.12.2020.
This application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 907 of 2018, under Sections 147, 368, 376, 354, 506, 507 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that trial in the present case has already started and the statements of two prosecution witnesses have also been recorded.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 02.08.2018, as such, he be released on bail.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted at this stage given the pendency of the trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mannu @ Lokesh
Coram
Nadim Alam
Rajiv Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/43930/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court