A single judge dismissed the third bail application of the accused, holding that the bail prayer was devoid of merits because the rejection of regular bail was confirmed by the Apex Court. The court noted significant progress in cross-examination against the timeline.
The third bail application of the applicant was rejected.
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:175952
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34853 of 2023
Applicant :- Karamjeet Singh Kapoor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The accused applicant, Karamjeet Singh Kapoor is involved in Case Crime No.496 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra.
Arguing the third bail application of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant took the only ground that vide order dated 22.04.2022, the Apex Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year from the date of communication of the copy of that order to the trial court but still the trial is pending, it has not been concluded.
The statement of P.W.-1 only has been recorded till date. Nonbailable warrants are being issued for the formal witnesses. As the trial has not been concluded within the time fixed by the Apex Court, hence the prayer is made for bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
From perusal of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 22.04.2022 appended at page no.20 of the paper book, it is clear that the order of the dismissal of the regular bail application of the applicant by this Court was confirmed by the Apex Court, however, one year time was granted by the Apex Court to conclude the trial. This order was communicated to the trial court on 01.06.2022 and on the same date, bailable warrants were issued against the witnesses and the order-sheet shows that since then the witness, P.W.-1 appeared in the Trial Court almost on every date. His crossexamination continued for 11 dates and after 28.04.2023 when the cross-examination of P.W.-1 was completed by the accused
counsel, the trial court is regularly making efforts to summon the witnesses. Meanwhile, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was also moved by the first informant, which was rejected by the trial court on merits and now the trial court is issuing non-bailable warrants along with the letter to the appellants Commissioner for summoning the formal witnesses which shows that the efforts are being made by the trial court to dispose of the case, expeditiously, otherwise also the cross-examination of P.W.-1 continued for eleven dates from 01.06.2022 to 23.04.2023 i.e almost for 10 months. Thus, the time of 10 months out of 12 months' time granted by the Apex Court was exhausted in the cross-examination of P.W.-1 only.
In the opinion of the Court, this delay cannot be counted on the part of the Presiding Officer, otherwise also when the order of the rejection of regular bail of the appellant by this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail and if the applicant finds that the order of the Apex Court has not been complied with, he is free to move contempt application before the Apex Court. The third bail application of the applicant being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and the same is rejected .
Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Atul
Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to grant bail given the Supreme Court confirmed the rejection of regular bail but granted time to conclude trial.
Whether the delay in concluding the trial within the Supreme Court directed timeline can be attributed to the Presiding Officer to warrant bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Karamjeet Singh Kapoor
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
