Allahabad High Court
Sudhir Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 24 September, 2014
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved on.:18.9.2014
Delivered on.:
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12388 of 2014
Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Vikram,Manish Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Preetpal Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwari assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, Advocate and Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore appearing for other side.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bachchoo Lal, J. on 30.12.2013 by virtue of a very elaborate, reasoned and speaking order. The present bail application has been filed primarily on the ground of parity with the other co-accused Smt. Sangita, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2014.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since subsequently the other co-accused Smt. Sangita has been granted bail by this Court hence, the applicant Sudhir Kumar, is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.
From perusal of the order by virtue of which bail was granted to Smt. Sangita. It is clear that on the date of granting bail the court was well aware of the fact that the bail application of the co-accused namely Sudhir Kumar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.12.2013. It may also be appreciated that Smt. Sangita was granted bail on the ground that she being a lady and being in jail since 15.9.2012, she would not misuse the liberty of the bail, moreover she was working as a Worden in the Military Hospital at Allahabad. In order granting bail to Smt. Sangita it was clarified that the said bail order shall not be considered for the purpose of parity by the other co-accused namely the present applicant Sudhir Kumar.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even though while granting bail to Smt. Sangita this Court specifically directed the court below to decide the case expeditiously if possible within a period of four months strictly in accordance with section 309 Cr.P.C., however till date only one witness has been examined even though it is the other side, who is trying to delay the proceedings and the applicant is fully cooperating in the trial.
Be as it may, a perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or new ground has been brought on record. Having perused the earlier order by means of which the first bail application was rejected this court does not feel incline to interfere with the same.
However, the fact remains that while granting bail to Smt. Sangita this court had issued specific direction to the court below to decide the case expeditiously if possible within a period of four months. The said order was passed on 14.3.2014, the prescribed period has already expired. As per learned counsel for the applicant only one witness has been examined till date. Though the present second bail application is rejected as no ground or subsequent development has been brought on record but at the same time looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 15.9.2012 and the fact that the co-accused Smt. Sangita has also been released on bail and the trial has not yet been concluded inspite of specific direction of this court.
This court directs the court below to conclude the trial positively if there is no legal impediment and strictly in accordance with section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of four months from today. The applicant is also given liberty to move a fresh application for bail.
With the aforesaid observations the second bail application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.09.2014
dhirendra/-
