Kuldeepak v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment rejected a fourth bail application filed by an applicant involved in a crime under Sections 302, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held that since most prosecution witnesses were examined and the trial was nearing completion, no good ground existed for bail. It directed the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22898 of 2022
Applicant :- Kuldeepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shanker Prasad,Alind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Kuldeepak, who is involved in Case Crime No. 228 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 302 IPC, police station Belipar, district Gorakhpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Earlier three bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2018, 29.3.2019 and 28.1.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33421 of 2017, 72 of 2019 and 37765 of 2020 respectively.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been in jail since 07.7.2016, but his trial has not yet been concluded and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that before the trial court seven prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail considering that most prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its fag end.
Whether the delay in concluding the trial warrants granting bail despite the gravity of the offences charged.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Kuldeepak
Coram
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Mohammad Ishrat
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/22898/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court