Third bail application rejected. Trial at advanced stage; prosecution witnesses say they will be produced later, but record lacks notice proof. Court rejects bail but directs trial court and police to conclude trial expeditiously under CrPC 309.
Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously under CrPC 309.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119493
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21095 of 2023
Applicant :- Subhash@ Subhash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Subhash@ Subhash Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 762 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders dated 06.06.2013 and 27.05.2014 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15628 of 2013 and 27218 of 2013 respectively.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.08.2012 but till date, the trial has not been concluded because two prosecution witnesses, namely, Vijay Prakash Rai and Mathura Rai who were summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are not appearing before the trial court despite issuance of non-bailable warrant against them, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that all the prosecution witnesses shown in the list of charge sheet have been examined before the trial court. So far as statement of Vijay Prakash Rai and Mathura Rai is concerned, he undertakes that the efforts will be made to produce them before the trial court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the order sheet of the trial court does not indicate about service of notice upon witnesses namely, Vijay Prakash Rai and Mathura Rai. It is also not in dispute that all
the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and the trial of the applicant is at the advanced stage, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant at the advanced stage of trial.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
However, considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with provision 309 Cr.P.C.
Superintendence of Police Deoria, is also directed to ensure the production of remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court in order to ensure the early conclusion of the trial.
The registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial court as well as Superintendence of Police Deoria, for information and compliance.
Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Gaurav
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted at an advanced stage of trial where trial witnesses are not producing statements.
Whether the trial court should expedite conclusion of trial in light of long detention of the applicant.
Whether police superintendence is required to ensure production of remaining witnesses.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhash Yadav
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
