Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33716 of 2016 Applicant :- Brajvir Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,N. Tripathi,Vinay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant has filed a supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the comlplainant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 443/2015, under section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicate in the present case due to ulterior motive; there is no allegation in the FIR against the applicant that he has fired upon the deceased; even if the entire prosecution story is believed to be true in toto the applicant has been assigned the role of only instigation; as far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, the same has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit even otherwise the deceased has long criminal history; the accused applicant is in jail since 17.02.2015 and in case he 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 and also looking to the period of detention, 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 Brajvir 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 within a period of one year from the production of certified copy of the order 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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Mohit Kushwaha