Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3209
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vipin Sinha, J.
Vimal Prakash Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1335 of 2016
Decided On : 22-02-2016
For the Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi
For the Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kaushlesh Tripathi,Shashwat Shukla
The seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's criminal history, and the severity of the punishment are key factors in deciding bail applications. However, the court may also consider the applicant's age and time spent in jail when directing expeditious decisions on pending cases.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Law - The court rejected the bail application of the applicant based on the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's criminal history, and the severity of the punishment. However, considering the applicant's age and time spent in jail, the court directed the concerned court to decide the pending case expeditiously, preferably within six months, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and the principle laid down in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after being in jail since 15.11.2015. The bail application was rejected based on the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application but directed the concerned court to decide the pending case expeditiously, preferably within six months, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and the principle laid down in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Issues: Bail application rejection, seriousness of allegations, applicant's criminal history, expeditious decision on pending case
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's criminal history, and the severity of the punishment influenced the court's decision to reject the bail application. However, the court also considered the applicant's age and time spent in jail, leading to the direction for expeditious decision on the pending case.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, but the concerned court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, preferably within six months, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and the principle laid down in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Vipin Sinha, J.
Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashwat Shukla and Sri Kaushlesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 3 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
2. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. as well as the order by means of which the bail application has been rejected by the court below itself.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is aged about 63 years and a diabetic patient. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the applicant has initially executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant and the possession was also handed over to him, however, subsequently the same plot has been sold by the applicant in favour of co-accused Smt. Shashi Devi. He further contended that in some of the cases such as in case crime no. 549 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, the warrant has been issued against the applicant, in case crime no. 373 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the summoning order has been issued against the applicant on 4.3.2015, in case crime no. 34-A of 2002, a chargesheet no. 58-A of 2002 has been submitted for offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, in case crime no. 123 of 1994, under Sections 409 IPC is also pending. He lastly contended that he has also elaborate the long criminal history of the applicant in paragraph no.20 of the counter affidavit.
5. Looking to the seriousness of allegations which are not being refuted and the severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
6. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
7. However, looking to the fact that the applicant is aged about 63 years and he is in jail since 15.11.2015, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, if possible preferably within a period of six months 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 , if there is no legal impediment.
8. 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.
