Dismissed

Sudama v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023BAIL/436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court rejected the plea for bail citing grave offences and likelihood of guilt. However, it addressed trial delays by directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year and imposing coercive measures to ensure witness attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial directed to conclude within one year; coercive measures against non-appearing witnesses ordered.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 436 of 2023 Applicant :- Sudama Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2022 at Police Station Chakarghatta, District Chandauli under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 325, IPC. The applicant is in jail since 12.12.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 17.12.2022.

¶7

Two persons have sustained grievous head injuries. The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who inflicted the grievous head injury on the injured. Medical reports as well as the statements of the injured corroborate the prosecution case. Primafacie there is likelihood that the applicant has committed the offence. The offence is grave in nature. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.

¶8

Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed.

¶9

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant contends that the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2022. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

¶11

The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶12

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶13

The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede

¶14

the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

¶15

Police and administrative authorities of the State are also directed to ensure that the coercive measures adopted by the court are promptly executed to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the appointed date before the trial court.

¶16

The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.

¶17

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Chandauli by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX. Order Date :- 12.1.2023 Pravin

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudama v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama 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

Jhandu @ Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohm Salmaan Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Venkatesh Vs State of U.P.

Mursan Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Soni Vs State of U.P.