- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vivek Kumar v. State Of U.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns an appeal in which leave was granted. The Court was informed that the appellant had been in जेल (custody) since 04-04-1998 in connection with offences under Sections 307 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court noted that the appellant had remained in custody for a long period without the trial having commenced. The order also refers to suppression of certain factual details when a bail application was filed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant should be released on bail given the long period of custody without commencement of trial.
- Whether alleged suppression of facts in the bail application should bar bail, particularly where the Court attributed the lapse to counsel rather than the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s primary reasoning rested on the appellant’s prolonged incarceration since 04-04-1998 and the fact that the trial had not commenced despite this extended custody. On that basis, the Court concluded that there was “no need” to detain the appellant further and expressed an inclination to release him on bail.
Although the Court acknowledged suppression of certain factual aspects when the bail application was filed, it nonetheless granted bail. The Court indicated that such suppression “would not have been done by the appellant” and attributed the lapse to counsel. It held that lapses on the part of counsel should not, in the circumstances of this case, be permitted to prejudice an appellant who was “languishing in jail.”
Accordingly, the Court ordered release on bail subject to conditions: execution of a bond and furnishing two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
Holding and Implications
BAIL GRANTED; APPEAL DISPOSED OF.
The direct consequence is that the appellant must be released on bail upon execution of a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The appeal stands disposed of. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or lay down any new precedent beyond its case-specific determination.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We are told that the appellant is in jail from 4-4-1998 in connection with offences under Sections 307 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is quite a long period that he has been in custody without commencing the trial. There is no need to detain him further in custody and therefore we are inclined to release him on bail, notwithstanding the suppression of certain factual position when the bail application was filed. It would not have been done by the appellant. We feel that lapses on the part of the counsel should not in this case be allowed to prejudice the appellant who is languishing in jail.
3. For the aforesaid reasons we order that the appellant be released on bail on execution of a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
Alert