Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10422 of 2016 Applicant :- Abhishek Singh @ Kakey Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi,Gulab Chandra,Madan Lal Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
In view of the order dated 31.7.2017, contents of which are self explicit, the Court proceed to hear the matter on merits.
Heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi and Sri A.B.L. Gaur, Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Sudhindra Kumar Singh and Sri Rajneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2015, under Sections 286, 304 I.P.C. and section 4/5 Explosive Act, P.S. Obera District Sonbhadra.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has a mining lease duly executed in his favour for the purposes of mining; contracts are issued for the purposes of blasting to different contractors; it is difficult to say at this stage as to what offence would be made out for which the applicant may be tried; looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at best a case under Section 304A IPC would be made out. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 3.11.2015 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Abhishek Singh @ Kakey Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Kuldeep