Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31380 of 2015 Applicant :- Ahsan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Farid Ahmed Qureshi,A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Two supplementary affidavits are taken on record.
Heard Sri A Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant - Ahsan and the learned A.G.A in connection with S.T. No.320/2013 (Case Crime No.47/2013), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Kiratpur, Bijnor.
Considering that the the applicant is the husband of the victim, who is alleged to have consumed poison as she resented the applicant in providing monetary help to her sister-in-law's weding, am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail merely on the ground that there was no symptom of force feeding which can be appropriately examined at the stage of trial or on the ground of detention since 5.3.2013.
The bail application stands rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant then states that an outer limit be fixed for expeditious disposal of the trial.
The Constitution Bench (7 Judges) of the Apex Court in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002(4) SCC 578, which has been followed in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal V. State of Maharashtra, 2013(4)SCC 642, has held that courts should not fix outer limit for trial.
However, the court concerned is directed to expedite the trial to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, under intimation to this Court. It is made clear that court below would not grant unnecessary adjournments, adjournments, if any, shall be for strong and compelling reasons, else would attract exemplary cost.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Chandra