Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 158 of 2018 Applicant :- Garvit Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Jamal,Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Shri. Sharique Ahmed appearing for the applicant in the second bail application and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2016, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bithur, District Kanpur Nagar. The first bail application was rejected on 01.03.2017.
It is contended that there was no eye-witness to the incident and only on the basis of solitary statement of the Chaukidar, that has been recorded after a period of one month, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. The next contention is that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, the wife of the deceased Mona @ Moni has been examined as P.W.1 and in the testimony of P.W.1, there were vast contradictions. In her statement she also states that even the police is involved in the case and there is likelihood that police officers might have committed murder of husband of the first informant, and solely on the basis of suspicion the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no eye-witness. No recovery of brick has been found from the applicant. It has been lastly contended that applicant is in jail since 12.09.2016 with no criminal history and in case has is release on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. However, she admits that there is contradiction in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.1 has also been persued by her and she admits as there are contradictions.
It has also been informed that the deceased had criminal history of 15 cases and further in the present case there are as many as 24 witnesses in the charge-sheet itself and till date only three witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 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 no in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Garvit 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 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.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Abhishek/V.S. Singh