Dismissed

Rajiv v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023BAIL/14114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the single judge dismissed the prayer for bail, noting the applicant's responsibility for trial delay. The order directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, imposed exemplary costs for adjournments, and mandated strict measures for witness attendance and warrant execution by police.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial directed to conclude in two months; exemplary costs imposed for adjournments; strict police coordination ordered for witness attendance and warrant execution.

Rajiv Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150037

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14114 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajiv Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Gupta,Ambikesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

This is the second bail application.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 298 of 2021 at Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad under Sections 376/511, 452 IPC and Section 5/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2021.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 02.08.2022.

¶9

The status report sent by the learned trial court records that all prosecution witnesses have been examined. Three defence witnesses have also been examined. Time has been granted to the accused on the applicant for introducing another defence witness. Counsel for the accused has sought an adjournment causing delay in final disposal. It is evident from the report that the applicant and his counsel are responsible for the delay in the trial.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case, the bail

¶11

application is dismissed.

¶12

The trial is on foot. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

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. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶14

The learned trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned trial court shall impose exemplary costs not less than Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment upon the parties/counsels seeking adjournment.

¶15

The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.

¶16

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

¶17

appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶18

The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.

¶19

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.

¶20

In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.

¶21

The delay in execution of warrants and consequent

¶22

absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.

¶23

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.

¶24

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Moradabad by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Dhananjai

¶26

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

Rajiv v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rishabh Kumar @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Boby Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Arun Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash Sharma @ Pappu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.