Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40184 of 2016 Applicant :- Asif @ Chikna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, Advocae has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of applicant along with supplementary affidavit which contains the order order sheets of the court below, both are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1351 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 12.11.2013, passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 14914 of 2013 and second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 29.01.2016, passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 12862 of 2014.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that inspite of specific directions of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2016 to conclude the trial within a period of eight months but till date the trial is still pending. Even though the court concerned has issued non bailable warrant against the witnesses who are not appearing for recording their statements. It has further been contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 16.04.2012, more than six years have already been elapsed but the trial has not yet been concluded. It has lastly been contended that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, 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 Asif @ Chikna 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 further 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 :- 20.9.2018 sailesh