Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31132 of 2016 Applicant :- Ayyub Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwakar Tiwari,Shyam Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant - Ayyub, Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A in connection with Case Crime No.119/2016, under Sections 376-D/452/363 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Considering the nature of allegations, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, merely on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.
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.
Let a compliance report be submitted in Chambers on 27.10.2018 at 4.00 PM.
The applicant is at liberty to place on record a certified copy of this order before the court concerned.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Chandra