Disposed

Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC27 May 2024BAIL/5608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, by per curiam order, directed the trial court to examine and cross-examine two additional witnesses within four weeks to avoid unnecessary adjournments pending a June 2024 date.

What did the court decide?

**The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri directed to ensure production** of two proposed witnesses before the trial court on the fixed date; **Trial court directed** to examine and cross-examin

Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5608 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Rudra Pratap Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

2 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3118 of 2021.

¶8

3 . It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that on the application moved by the prosecution, two witnesses, who were earlier not named in the charge-sheet, were mentioned by virtue of an order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit). He also argues that examination of one of the witnesses has already been recorded, which is on record as Annexure-SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit. He also draws my attention to the examination of the said person, which according to the Counsel for the applicant does not corroborate with the FIR allegations. Insofar as, the informant had disclosed that the said two persons had come along with the deceased whereas the version of the said persons is not in consonance with the earlier statement of the informant.

¶9

4 . Be that as it may, the fact remains that the two witnesses has not deposed so far. The applicant has not cross-examined and it is informed at the Bar that 3 June, 2024 is the date fixed for cross-examination.

¶10

5 . In view of the said fact, it is directed that the trial court shall ensure that the said two witnesses as mentioned in the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur Kheri are examined and cross-examined without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

6 . List this case on 10.07.2024 .

¶12

7 . The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that the said two proposed witness as mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2024 are produced before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 akverma

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tapeshwari Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rajkumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dayaa Shankar Ram Pno. No. 892462115 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt of Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Paramjit Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy.Prin.Secy. Home

Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Ibran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.