In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court rejected bail for the applicant involved in a murder case. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, emphasizing the heinous nature of the offence.
Bail application rejected. Direct to trial court to conclude trial within six months.
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. - 37412 of 2022
Applicant :- Ashok @ Khemka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Ashok @ Khemka, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0096 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 325/34 I.P.C., Police Station Sakit, District Etah, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case in brief, informant Pradeep Kumar who is son of deceased lodged an F.I.R. on 31.03.2015 with regard to murder of his father Avran Singh against seven accused persons namely Dinesh @ Gudda, Ashok @ Khemka (present applicant), Vinod, Aaram Singh, Rajpal @ Raju, Madanlal and Ramdas @ Pappu.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been languishing in jail since 01.05.2015 but till date, his trial has not been concluded despite there being specific direction to expedite the trial of this case vide order dated 18.12.2022 of co-accused Dinesh Alias Gudda in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3973 of 2019.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the above order dated 18.12.2020 in which there was a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months was filed by the accused persons before the
trial court after much delay on 7.08.2022, therefore, accused persons are at fault who have not communicated the order dated 18.12.2020 to the trial court well within time.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order dated 28.03.2023, a report with regard to present status of trial of the applicant was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer who in compliance submitted its report dated 07.04.2023 mentioning therein that on account of transfer of Sessions Trial No. 64 of 206, records were received to his Court on 31.01.2023. In the said report, it is also mentioned that in this case, six prosecution witnesses have been examined and only five prosecution witnesses are remain. It is also mentioned that efforts will be made to conclude the trial of the applicant within further six months.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage as the offence is heinous in nature.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
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.
However considering the report dated 07.04.2023 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Etah, trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.
It is made clear that in case the prosecution witnesses do not appear on the date fixed, coercive action shall be taken against them to ensure their presence.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant also undertakes before this Court that no adjournment shall be taken from
the side of prosecution.
Parties are directed to file a copy of this order to the concerned trial court to ensure the compliance of the same.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the delay in trial despite previous directions to expedite it.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months without adjournments.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok @ Khemka
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Saurabh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
