Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Omendra And Others v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6368 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 1134 (17 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 19

Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Application No.6368 of 2004

Omendra & others.....Vs.....State of U.P.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.

Heard applicants' counsel and the learned A.G.A. for the State as also the learned private counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicants. The first bail application was rejected on 12.11.2003 by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. However, the learned trial court was directed to conclude the trial in case Crime No. 18 of 2003, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Baghwala, District Etah within four months. This second bail application was released by his Lordship vide order dated 20.8.2004. It was pointed out on behalf of the applicants that the evidence of nine witnesses has been adduced but even after expiry of about two years the trial could not be concluded and therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail. Learned private counsel for the complainant stated that after closing of the evidence the Court has now fixed a date for recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He and the learned A.G.A., however, opposed the bail application.

This Court had directed for conclusion of the trial within four months, if possible. The order was passed in November, 2003. Instead of four months, a period of more than two years has now lapsed but the trial could not be concluded. There also does not appear to be any request from the side of the trial court for extension of time. As the evidence has concluded, there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.

 In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration some of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants in respect of the points discussed herein above, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicants be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.