Dismissed

Mathura Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023BAIL/8921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a second bail application by a husband charged with murdering his wife under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. While acknowledging the delay in trial, the Court found no new grounds for bail due to the offence's gravity. It directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Mathura Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8921 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mathura Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Singh Tomar,Manvendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 107 of 2019, under Sections 302, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Tarkulwa, District-Deoria, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.08.2020, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20639 of 2020.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.06.2019, but till date, his trial has not been concluded and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court.

¶9

Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that applicant is husband of the deceased who died her unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The deceased succumbed to the multiple injuries in the nature of abrasion and two ligature marks on her body. It is a case of murder of the wife by her husband. So far as delay in trial of the applicant is concerned, it is submitted that the there are three accused in this case including the applicant and they used to move adjournment applications alternatively one by one during trial.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that no new ground has been put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant except the period of detention as noted above. The charge has already been framed in this case against the applicant on 25.10.2021 and the trial is proceeding. Considering the gravity of offence and conduct of the accused, as pointed out by the learned A.G.A., I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected .

¶12

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.

¶13

However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Kashifa

¶15

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

Mathura Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathura 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Ramkaran Kewat Alias Banta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep @ Sandeep Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Bhupendra @ Chandi Lal Vs State of U.P.