Dismissed¶11

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bail – third bail application

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2025BAIL/4691/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4691 of 2025; Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; order dated 10.4.2025; third bail application rejected; Case Crime No. 95 of 2022; Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC; Section 4(2)6 POCSO Act; Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly; trial at fag end; all prosecution witnesses examined; statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. fixed for 10.4.2025; earlier bail orders dated 14.3.2023 and 29.2.2024; advocate's duty to communicate correct trial status to brother advocate; copy of order to Sessions Trial record.

What did the court decide?

No case for bail is made out because the trial is at fag end (all prosecution witnesses examined, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. fixed); accordingly the third bail application is rejected. ¶11

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52535

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4691 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.

¶7

This is the third bail application. First bail application was disposed of vide order dated 14.3.2023 and second was disposed of vide order dated 29.2.2024 respectively.

¶8

Applicant has approached this Court to released him on bail in Case Crime No.95 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and 4(2)6 POCSO Act, Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly.

¶9

It is very disturbing that Advocates practising at Trial Court and dealing with criminal trial as in the present case, do not communicate correct facts as in present case it was wrongly intimated to learned counsel for the applicant appearing before this Court about status of trial, just a week ago that only four witnesses were examined which is absolutely contrary to records.

¶10

In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 8.4.2025 that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now trial is fixed for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.4.2025.

¶11

In the aforesaid circumstances, no case of bail is made out, since the trial is at fag end. Accordingly, this third bail application is rejected.

¶12

Learned Advocate, who is conducting trial at District Court, Bareilly is advised that since he is under a legal obligation to communicate his brother Advocate, the correct information about

¶13

status of trial since it would lead to a situation where learned counsel appearing before this Court may be guilty of misleading this Court.

¶14

A copy of this order be placed on records of concerned Session Trial.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 SB

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Panwar vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Shashank Kumar Nayak vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College, Bhatpar Rani and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Guddu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maina Devi vs State of U.P.

Geeta Josef vs State of U.P. and 5 Others