Dismissed

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/20333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a second bail plea lodged by an accused in a murder case. The trial was at an advanced stage with most prosecution witnesses examined. The court held there were no good grounds for bail at the fag end of the trial and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously without adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20333 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastav,Harish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 792 of 2020, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Loni Border, District-Ghaziabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2021, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7764 of 2021 on merits.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 09.09.2020, but till date the trial of the applicant has not been concluded. The informant and his two daughters as well as his neighbour have been examined before the trial Court as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, but they have been declared hostile at the request of the prosecution, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the state submits that all the prosecution witnesses of the fact have been examined and the trial of the applicant is at the advanced stage.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order dated 22.02.2023 a report about present status of trial of the applicant was called for from the

¶11

concerned Presiding OfÏcer, who has submitted his report dated 10.03.2023 which is on record and according to the same, out of eleven prosecution witnesses, eight prosecution witnesses have been examined and the statements of only formal prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded.

¶12

At this advanced stage of trial, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not deem it appropriate to discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail as allegation and defence of the applicant is still open to be urged before the trial Court.

¶13

In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at the fag end of the trial.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

However, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Kashifa

¶18

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

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sallan Maulana Vs State of U.P.

Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Govind Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.