In a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the applicant's plea for bail at an advanced stage of trial but directed the trial court to expedite proceedings to conclude the case.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115670
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57479 of 2022
Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Dwivedi,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.
By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Kuldeep, who is involved in Case Crime No. 314 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8739 of 2018.
At the outset, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and trial of the applicant is at the advanced stage.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant, upon instructions, submits that two prosecution witnesses are still remain to be examined. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2017, therefore, considering his detention period, applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that trial of the applicant is proceeding and the same is at the advanced stage. This Court, in exercise of power under Section 439 Cr.P.C., does not deem it appropriate to evaluate and discuss the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in detail. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this advanced stage of trial.
The instant second bail application of the applicant is rejected .
It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
However considering the detention period of the applicant, trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is also directed to ensure the production of remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed before the trial court for early conclusion of the trial.
OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court below as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application seeking enlargement during an advanced stage of trial should be allowed.
Whether the trial court should expedite proceedings given the applicant's prolonged detention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
