The Allahabad High Court has rejected the second bail plea of Samajwadi Party (SP) MLA Ramakant Yadav in a spurious liquor case.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ramakant Yadav.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the order dated 28.02.2023.
The Criminal Misc Bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ramakant Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Sessions Trial under Section 60A Excise Act and Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh.
Against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in the bail application, the applicant filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) (Ramakant Yadav Vs State of UP) before the Apex Court which was disposed of by the order dated 28.07.2023 with the observation that if the trial does not make substantial progress within a period of six months, it will be open for the petitioner therein to apply for bail afresh before the High Court.
“After having heard counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is a second bail application. The first bail applications of the applicant were rejected via a common order dated 28.02.2023 passed by another Bench of this Court. The said order was subjected to challenge before the Apex Court and the petition therein was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file a bail application before the High Court afresh if there is no substantial progress in trial after six months. In one of the cases on his own showing and statement of the counsel for the applicant 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas in the other case 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The trial court is well aware of the order of the Apex Court disposing of the petition by the applicant as would reflect from its order dated 10.08.2023 passed in it.
There is nothing on record to show that the trial is being intentionally delayed or being lingered for any obvious reason. It cannot be said that the trial is not substantially progressing. The applicant has a long criminal history and has even been convicted in one case by the trial court against which an appeal has been dismissed and a revision against the same is pending before the High Court. No ground exists to entertain the bail application,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.
The Court said the trial court is again reminded of the order of the Apex Court and ensures that the trial is not unnecessarily delayed.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ramakant Yadav.
This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the order dated 28.02.2023.
The Criminal Misc Bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ramakant Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Sessions Trial under Section 60A Excise Act and Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh.
Against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in the bail application, the applicant filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) (Ramakant Yadav Vs State of UP) before the Apex Court which was disposed of by the order dated 28.07.2023 with the observation that if the trial does not make substantial progress within a period of six months, it will be open for the petitioner therein to apply for bail afresh before the High Court.
“After having heard counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is a second bail application. The first bail applications of the applicant were rejected via a common order dated 28.02.2023 passed by another Bench of this Court. The said order was subjected to challenge before the Apex Court and the petition therein was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file a bail application before the High Court afresh if there is no substantial progress in trial after six months. In one of the cases on his own showing and statement of the counsel for the applicant 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas in the other case 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The trial court is well aware of the order of the Apex Court disposing of the petition by the applicant as would reflect from its order dated 10.08.2023 passed in it.
There is nothing on record to show that the trial is being intentionally delayed or being lingered for any obvious reason. It cannot be said that the trial is not substantially progressing. The applicant has a long criminal history and has even been convicted in one case by the trial court against which an appeal has been dismissed and a revision against the same is pending before the High Court. No ground exists to entertain the bail application,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.
The Court said the trial court is again reminded of the order of the Apex Court and ensures that the trial is not unnecessarily delayed.
The post appeared first on .