Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49690 of 2017 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar,Sanjeev Kumar Sharma 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.143 of 2016 u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Bithoor District Kanpur Nagar. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 27.2.2017, however, while rejecting the first bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial expeditiously on day to day basis.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
It is contended that the trial has not yet been concluded till date in spite of there being a specific direction of this Court for the trial to be concluded expeditiously on day to day basis.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record. However, copies of certain statements have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit especially the statement of doctor, which has been duly perused.
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, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case may now be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in view of the fact that earlier a direction was issued to the court concerned for the trial to be concluded expeditiously 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