Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Raj Kishore Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9402 of 2008

Petitioner :- Raj Kishore Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.

Applicant- Raj Kishore Sharma seeks bail in Case Crime No. 271 of 2007,
under Sections 304-B,498-A,201 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and also
perused the material placed on record.

Submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is in jail since 22.8.2007 and the trial has not concluded. Although
the trial has commenced and substantially proceeded but it is likely to
consume some more time to conclude. Moreover, the applicant has got no
criminal history to his credit, thus deserves to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed this bail application and
contended that a number of witnesses have been examined and it would not be
proper at this stage to release the applicant on bail and, moreover, the
prosecution is apprehensive of the fact that in case the applicant is allowed to
be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the
judicial process.

Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well
as having perused the material placed on record, I do not find any good
ground to release the applicant on bail. The prayer for bail is refused and the
application is, therefore, rejected, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case.

However, taking into account that the applicant is in jail since 22.8.2007 , the
trial court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial
expeditiously in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Both
the parties are expected to cooperate with the proceedings and not to seek
unnecessary adjournments.

The office is directed to send the copy of the order to the District Judge/Trial
Court immediately for the communication and necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 29.1.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.148 seconds.