Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Jaikun Nisha – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Suraj Singh Visen, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station-Khodhare, District-Gonda.
3. The first bail application of the applicant bearing No. 14638 of 2022 was rejected by means an order dated 22.03.2023. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that subsequent to rejection of the first bail application of applicant, the informant has been examined as PW-1 and her husband has been examined as PW-2. PW-1 has not supported the cross-examination and PW-2 has been declared to be hostile.
4. When this Court perused the statement of PW-1, which was recorded on 5 dates between 18.10.2023 and 07.08.2024, it appears that in her statement recorded on 18.10.2023, the informant fully supported the prosecution case. She stated that all the accused persons used to harass her daughter by demanding dowry. On 29.07.2022, her son-in-law Mukeem had told her that her da
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.
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.
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 right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
Timely cross-examination is essential for a fair trial; delays can compromise witness integrity and affect justice.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the du....
Examination-in-chief – Witnesses - Merely providing a witness in such a situation for cross-examination would be of no consequence because witness has to be re-heard keeping in view principle of de n....
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
