Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14766 of 2018 Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 91/2016, under Sections 302 IPC police station Pallav Puram, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; after rejection of the first bail application, PW-2 Smt. Rajesh has been examined before the trial court in S.T. No. 1278 of 2016 and she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has been declared as hostile, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 9 to the bail application; the applicant is in jail since 2.9.2016 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the investigation is now complete and a chargesheet has already been submitted. No Investigation is now left.
It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.
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 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 Gaurav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.
5. 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 him 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, it would be open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India in Crl. Appeal No. 509 of 2017 decided on 9th March, 2017, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Anand