Shailendra Kumar Patel vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 4193 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41859 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Patel
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratap Narain Gangwar,Amit Kumar Sinha,Chetna Anjum,Shailendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.5.2019.

5. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.490 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

6. From the perusal of order-sheet of the trial, it is indicated that PW-10 has been examined and the case has been fixed for 9.2.2023 for statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No new ground is there to press the bail application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the period of incarceration is the strong ground for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that the trial is its logical conclusion and the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that no new ground is there except the period of incarceration and also that trial is at is conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

Order Date :- 9.2.2023

Vikas