Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34559 of 2017 Applicant :- Aslam Malik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Shukla
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvansi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.426 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad.
This is second bail applicant filed on behalf of the applicant namely Aslam Malik. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 09.01.2017.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is to the effect that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, the first informant itself has been examined as P.W.-1 and he has been declared hostile. At this stage itself it has been contended that even though in the first information report the name of the mother of the deceased as well as first informant was not mentioned, as she has seen the incident, but subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 the first informant has specifically mentioned that his mother was also accompanying with the first informant as well as the deceased at the time of the incident, however, in his statement as P.W.-1 he has denied the said story. The further contention is that two other persons namely Anil Kumar and Raju Singh, both are security guard, have been examined as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, and both of them have denied the prosecution story, copies of which have been annexed as annexure nos.2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.03.208. Both of them have also denied the prosecution story and have stated in their statements that they have not seen the alleged incident. In this view of the matter the story of the prosecution has become doubtful, hence the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2016.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State have opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2016 with no previous criminal history, 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 Aslam Malik 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.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 VKG