Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Amit Pal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 January, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.9 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10925/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-03-2018
in BA No. 7488/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
AMIT PAL SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No.175001/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 29-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anshu Mahajan, adv.
Mr. Lakshay S., Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Narang, Adv.
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr.Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by this Court granting INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.02.01 bail to co-accused Anil Kumar Jain. According 17:32:54 IST Reason:
to him the allegations against said Anil Kumar Jain and the present petitioner are identical and as such on principle of parity, the 2 petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel appearing for the State invited our attention to paragraphs 185, 186, 188 & 212 of the judgment under appeal. She further relied upon the assertions in the counter affidavit, as culled out in paragraph 2(viii).
Having gone through the judgment under appeal as well as contents of the counter affidavit, in our considered view, the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and do not entitle him to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
We have been given to understand that out of 52 witnesses cited to be examined in the charge-sheet, only seven witnesses have been examined. The matter is pending consideration before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Out of 13 accused who are facing trial only one person has been released on bail while the other 12 persons are still in custody. It is true that the period of custody has been around five years and especially in the case of present petitioner, it is more than five years. However, the allegations against the petitioner do not entitle him to be released on bail.
We, however, direct the trial court to conclude the proceedings on day-to-day basis and within next three months and also to send a compliance report in this regard. Needless to say that all the accused shall co-operate with the conduct and conclusion of the trial.
It was stated by Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel that the 3 petitioner has a medical condition and that no proper medical attention is being given to the petitioner. We direct, the jail authorities to see to it that the petitioner is afforded complete medical attention and care. With these observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER