Disposed

Manbodh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022BAIL/7004/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application in a grave criminal case involving burning resulting in death, the single judge dismissed the bail plea but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months due to inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; Trial court directed to conclude trial within six months; coercive measures directed against witnesses/counsels failing to appear.

Manbodh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7004 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manbodh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Umesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

This is a second bail application.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2017 at Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh under Sections 452, 354, 302 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 13.02.2017.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 19.10.2020.

¶8

The victim in her dying declaration has nominated the applicant as the principal offender who set her on fire. The victim died of burn injures. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.

¶9

Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.

¶10

Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail since 13.02.2017. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. Till date only one prosecution witness has been examined.

¶11

Inordinate delay in concluding trial had lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial. In case such state of affairs is correct, it is a disturbing state of affairs.

¶12

The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶13

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of six months is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶14

The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶15

Police and administrative authorities of the State are also directed to ensure that the coercive measures adopted by the court are promptly executed to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the appointed date before the trial court.

¶16

The trial judge shall submit a weekly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Dhananjai

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manbodh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbodh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangala Gond (Father-in-Law) Vs State of U.P.

Rakshad Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahnajar Urf Sonu Caudhary Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surya Bhan Yadav Vs State of U.P.