Dismissed

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023BAIL/55068/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected applicant's bail application in a fraud case involving IPC offences of cheating and forgery, finding offences grave. Court directed trial court to conclude trial within one year and enforce witness attendance strictly.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Trial directed to complete within one year with strict enforcement of witness attendance provisions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55068 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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. 156 of 2022 at Police Station Obra District Sonbhadra under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 20.10.2022.

¶7

The applicant impersonated as Avinash one of the owners of the disputed parcel of land and executed the offending sale deed. He is a beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. 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

Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial within a stipulated period of time.

¶10

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a

¶11

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.

¶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

¶16

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, Sonbhadra by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Dhananjai

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Sharma 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

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Raja Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Amisha Bahelia Vs State of U.P.

Languriya Vs State of U.P.

Ambrish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pramod @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.