Dismissed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023BAIL/55920/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of an applicant charged with causing death to a foetus, finding no case for bail due to the gravity of the offence. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year and issued specific directions for expediting proceedings and witness attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed; trial concluded within one year; strict directions for summons, warrants, and reporting.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55920 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav 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. 70 of 2022 at Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 316 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 16.05.2022.

¶6

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

¶7

The applicant has been identified as the principal offender who inflicted injuries to the expectant mother and caused the death of the foetus. The statement of the injured, eye witnesses and medical evidence as well as the F.I.R. corroborate the prosecution case. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant 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

¶10

expedite the trial and conclude it within a stipulated period of time.

¶11

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.

¶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 issue summons by regular process contemplated under Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as contemplated under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.

¶17

The Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.

¶18

In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Kanpur Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Kanpur Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court.

¶19

The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Dhananjai

¶23

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

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Alok Jha Vs State of U.P.

Injmam Ul Haq Vs State of U.P.

Anil Paswan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Shani Sharma Vs State of U.P.