Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3285 of 2018 Applicant :- Deepak Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari 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.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 325, 504 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Atarra, District Banda. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 27.2.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 6400 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.
It is contended that the first bail application was rejected apparently on the basis of statement of Ram Baran Yadav, however, it has been informed that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application the said witness has been examined as PW3 during trial where he has been discharged; similarly one other witness, namely, Ram Hriday has been examined and he has also been discharged; one other witness Munna Arakh has been examined as PW1 and he has been declared as hostile. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 15.7.2016 with no previous criminal history 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, 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 Deepak Dixit 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 :- 26.7.2018 Kuldeep