Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36388 of 2018 Applicant :- Bhola @ Wajid Ali @ Wahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Praveen Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant, Bhola @ Wajid Ali @ Wahid. The first application was rejected vide order dated 18.01.2018 by me.
Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State.
The present application renewing the bail plea has been filed in view of the changed circumstance that the injured witness Randhir Yadav @ Janu Yadav, on whose testimony much turned when the first bail application was heard, has now deposed exculpatory in the dock. He has testified his examination-in- chief that the applicant besides a number of other co-accused were not involved in the shooting. The learned counsel submits that on the said changed state of evidence there is no justification to detain the applicant further pending trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited the attention of the Court to the fact that co-accused, Niraj Yadav against whom there were similar allegations, has since been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39451 of 2017 keeping in view the dock evidence of Randhir Yadav @ Janu Yadav. Likewise, another co-accused Panne Lal Yadav has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
41337 of 2018. It is submitted that the applicant is, therefore, entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the injured witness has spoken exculpatory in his examination-in-chief during his dock evidence, the fact that co- accused, Niraj Yadav and Panne Lal Yadav have been enlarged on bail, whose role is at par with the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Bhola @ Wajid Ali @ Wahid involved in Case Crime No. 136 of 2016, under Sections 147,148,149,307,302,34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on executing his 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.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing 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 complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence laid unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 BKM/-