Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 638 (ALL)

Vimal Prakash Tiwari v. State of U. P.

2016-02-22

VIPIN SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT 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. 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.