AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 394 wordsHeard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the
stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No.136 of 2020 registered under sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband, in furtherance of
common intention with the co-accused persons, has murdered his wife. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and
are general and omnibus in nature. It is then submitted that there is no commensurate injury found on the dead body of the victim, as the allegation of
assault is by several persons. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is submitted that
the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of
the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murdering his wife, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of murdering his wife, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case
where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order
in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months
from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the
precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.