Vinod Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
In the second bail application for a rape and POCSO case, the High Court rejected the prayer, noting the first application was dismissed on merit. However, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within eight months due to the victim's examination and the applicant's prolonged detention.
What did the court decide?
Trial court directed to conclude trial within 8 months under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and POCSO Act.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98683
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5483 of 2023
Applicant :- Vinod Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kumar Rai,Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
- Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State today are taken on record.
- Heard Sri Shiv Prakash learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Aditya Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.
- The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial in the court below.
- This is the second bail application. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2022 and as the first bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J. and he is at present sitting in Lucknow, Bench, therefore, the instant second bail application is listed before this Bench.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application by the applicant should be allowed given the dismissal of the first application on merit and the progress of the trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously while the applicant remains in custody.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Vinod Maurya
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Sameer Jain
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/5483/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court