Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Angad Yadav vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 March, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2790 of 2018 Applicant :- Angad Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.54 of 2015 u/s 147,148,149,302,307/34,120B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/25/27 Arms Act PS Nandganj District Ghazipur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 12.5.2017 on the ground that applicant has criminal history of 10 cases. Copy of the first bail rejection order dated 12.5.2017 has been annexed as Annexure-5.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, looking to the fact that applicant is in jail since 10.3.2015 it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case may now be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order and in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 SP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Angad Yadav vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 March, 2018
Judges
  • Vipin Sinha
Advocates
  • Mr Ajay Srivastava