Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20484 of 2016 Applicant :- Guddu @ Arvind Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Bhushan Nath Tripa,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2015 u/s 302 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act PS Sheoli District Kanpur Dehat.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been named in the FIR along with two persons. However, the first informant is not an eye witness, two persons have been named as eye witness in the FIR namely Jhabole and Siyaram. The statement of witness Jhabole clearly says that he had not seen the actual incident. He had only seen the applicant coming out from the field and it appears that he has named the applicant only on the basis of suspicion. In his testimony he says that "mujhe purna vishwas hai ki Mewa Lal ki hatya Raju va Guddu Shukla ne milkar ki hai." As far as second witness Siya Ram is concerned, he clearly says in his statement that "Main mritak Mewa Lal ki hatya karte huve kisi ko apni aankh se nahi dekha hun". It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 18.6.2015 with no 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 Guddu @ Arvind Kumar Shukla 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 SP