Dismissed

Raju@ Rajupal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023BAIL/30002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court rejected the plea due to delays caused by accused persons. However, it directed the trial Court to expedite proceedings under Section 309 Cr.P.C. to conclude the trial without adjournments. This decision does not prejudice the merit of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied. Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. without adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30002 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju@ Rajupal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Kuntal

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 33 of 2020, under Sections 302, 328, 392, 411, 34 of I.P.C., Police Station-Govind Nagar, District-Mathura, 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 07.04.2021, in Criminal Mics. Bail Application No. 10860 of 2021.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.02.2020, but till date his trial has not been concluded.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that on account of non-cooperation of the accused persons the trial has not yet been concluded.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order dated 20.01.2023 of this Court, a report with regard to present status of trial of the applicant was

¶11

called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer, who submitted his report dated 01.02.2023, wherein he has mentioned inter alia that on 19.11.2022 coaccused Vimal became absent and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. Thereafter, on 02.12.2022 and 16.12.2022 also co-accused Vimal did not appear before the trial Court. On 23.12.2022 he appeared before the trial Court and moved an application No.18-Kha to recall the non bailable warrant, which was allowed on the personal bond of Rs. 1 lac. It is also mentioned that the trail of the applicant is at the stage of cross-examination of PW3. In the light of report dated 01.02.2023, I find that on account of adopting delaying tactics by the accused persons, there is delay in concluding the trial, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarged the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

In case, prosecution witnesses do not appear before the trial Court the coercive action shall be taken against them to ensure their presence before the trial Court fixing short dates.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Kashifa

¶17

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

Raju@ Rajupal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju@ Rajupal 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

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra @ Chandi Lal Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Sandeep Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ashwani Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Puttan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others