Dismissed

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/21905/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court rejected the plea for release despite the applicant's long detention. The Court, citing the serious nature of the charge and the presence of an eye-witness, denied bail but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within one year.

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189753

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21905 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Amarnath Tripathi,Ravish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purushottam Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Praveen Chaturvedi Advocate submitted that today he has filed his power on behalf of the applicant in the office of this Case and, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2019, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court on 18.11.2019 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48651 of 2019 and he is pressing the instant second bail application merely on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 12.05.2019 i.e. for more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 3 prosecution witnesses could be examined and, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal and, therefore, it is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the

¶12

informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and applicant is facing trial under Section 302 IPC, in which maximum punishment is life imprisonment and, therefore, merely on the ground that applicant is in jail since the year 2019, he should not be released on bail.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Although, from the record, it reflects that applicant is in jail since 12.05.2019 i.e. for more than four years and till date, only three prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 17 prosecution witnesses but it is a case in which wife of the deceased is eye-witness and she stated against the applicant, therefore, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected .

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶17

However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for more than four years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a year from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today by this Court strictly as per the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day-to-day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 KK Patel

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Beboo @ Baby Vs State of U.P.

Amit Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Param Singh Alias Premchand Vs State of U.P.

Megu Vs State of U.P.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others