Dismissed

Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023BAIL/47192/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court dismissed the bail application of an applicant charged with 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act offences, holding no grounds for bail were made out at that stage, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial within three months; witnesses directed to be produced promptly.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47192 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashfaq Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur,Prem Narayan Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi,Amrendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2021 at Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is in jail since 16.06.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 03.11.2021.

¶7

The learned trial court in its comments records that the trial is on foot. Five witnesses have been examined. However, the evidence is not being appraised as it may prejudice the trial.

¶8

At this stage, no ground for bail is made out.

¶9

Justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within a stipulated period of time.

¶10

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

¶11

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months 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 three is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

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.

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Bhadohi by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Vandit

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashfaq Ahmad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sushil @ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Wahid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sadhu Yadav @ Ramashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akram Mansuri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.