Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26845 of 2016 Applicant :- Subhash Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Anand Mohan Pandey,Somya Chaturvedi,Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Vardhan,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavits are taken on record.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, for the applicant, Sri Aditya Vardhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A in connection with Case Crime No.275/2014, under Sections 302/307/506 IPC, P.S. Katghar, Moradabad.
Considering the nature / seriousness / gravity of allegations, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, merely on the ground that 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined.
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