Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anwar Ali Vs. State of U.P.

Anwar Ali vs State of U.P.

Disposition Application allowed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 11, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/488457

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Cri. Misc. IVth Bail Appln. No. 19748 of 1999
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304, 307, 504 and 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anwar Ali

Advocate S.A. Lari, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304, 307, 504 and 506
Reported In
2000CriLJ3086

Excerpt

.....decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - police station kotwali district kushi nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.orderm. katju, j.1. this is the fourth bail application of the applicant. the incident is of july 1998 and i am informed that the trial has not even commenced. i am also informed that nowadays in uttar pradesh it takes ordinarily about five years or more to complete the trial. if a person is found innocent after five years (or more) the question arises as to who will restore those years of his life. this long time for completing the trial is itself an important consideration nowadays for grant of bail in most of the cases. article 21 is also violated if the trial is not held speedily as held by the supreme court in a large number of cases.2. the f.i.r. in the present case discloses that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. this fact coupled with the fact of delay in even commencing the trial makes it now a fit case for grant of bail.3. in the circumstances let the applicant anwar be enlarged on bail in case crime no. 444 of 1998 under sections 304, 307, 504, 506, i.p.c. police station kotwali district kushi nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Katju, J.

1. This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The incident is of July 1998 and I am informed that the trial has not even commenced. I am also informed that nowadays in Uttar Pradesh it takes ordinarily about five years or more to complete the trial. If a person is found innocent after five years (or more) the question arises as to who will restore those years of his life. This long time for completing the trial is itself an important consideration nowadays for grant of bail in most of the cases. Article 21 is also violated if the trial is not held speedily as held by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases.

2. The F.I.R. in the present case discloses that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. This fact coupled with the fact of delay in even commencing the trial makes it now a fit case for grant of bail.

3. In the circumstances let the applicant Anwar be enlarged on bail in case Crime No. 444 of 1998 under Sections 304, 307, 504, 506, I.P.C. police station Kotwali district Kushi Nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial