Back
KRISHAN PAHAL
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Krishan Pahal, J.
1. Heard Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and also perused the record.
2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506, 452 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41070 of 2020.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :
4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that PW-1 Informant and PW-2 Victim have been examined in Court and they have not supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the instant case.
5. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 13.05.2020, as such, more than 4 years have been passed. His fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated, as such, he is entitled for bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
Timely cross-examination is essential for a fair trial; delays can compromise witness integrity and affect justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Section 309 Cr.P.C. for expeditious witness examination to prevent undue influence and maintain trial integrity.
Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Section 309 Cr.P.C. for timely witness examination to prevent undue influence and ensure justice in criminal trials.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
Bail should not be granted without compelling circumstances, especially when trial is nearing conclusion and accused has shown dilatory tactics.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The duty of the Court to ensure fair trial for both the accused and the State, and the significance of cross-examination in bringing out the truth and testing the veracity of witnesses.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
