Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Kapil @ Pandit vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 October, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44374 of 2020 Applicant :- Kapil @ Pandit Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kapil @ Pandit, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 718 of 2019, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4160 of 2020 (Kapil @ Pandit Vs. State of U.P.).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the fresh and new ground in the present bail application is that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Rita Devi has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14540 of 2021 (Rita Devi Vs. State of U.P.). It is further argued that the other ground is that till date, the charges in the matter have not been framed in spite of the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted before the concerned court on 27.09.2019.
Learned counsel has placed the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial court from 15.11.2019 to 27.08.2019 and argued that the charge has not been framed till date. The certified copy of the said order sheet is annexed as annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.09.2021. It is further argued that the trial in the present matter is being unnecessarily delayed and the co-accused has been granted bail and as such the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order. It is argued that the perusal of the order sheet which is being relied upon goes to show that upto April, 2021, the accused persons did not file vakalatnama on their behalf of their lawyers in spite of the fact that the matter was being listed regularly for arguments on framing on charges. It is argued that the applicant filed his vakalatnama in the matter on 09.03.2021 and even then three of the co-accused took time for filing the same. It is argued that the delay in non framing of charge is not because of the prosecution but because of the accused persons who have intentionally delayed filing vakalatnama of their lawyers. It is argued that the present bail application thus deserves to be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a detailed order by this Court on merits. The order of co-accused who has been granted bail has only pursuasive value but is not binding. The delay in the non framing of charge by the concerned court cannot be cast upon the prosecution. There has been delayed on behalf of the accused in engaging their lawyers and filing their vakalatnama. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)
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

Kapil @ Pandit vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 October, 2021
Judges
  • Samit Gopal
Advocates
  • Kapil Tyagi Ashutosh Yadav