Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48319 of 2017 Applicant :- Afzal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 11.1.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 1467 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail rejection of the applicant, co-accused Ashu and Babu have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44366 of 2017. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.8.2016.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A. G. A. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant Afzal 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 in Case Crime No. 277 of 2016 u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Bhojpur District Ghaziabad.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702,, 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 :- 29.3.2018 SP