Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23870 of 2018 Applicant :- Khan Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Pankaj Bharti,Shantanu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Khan Chand with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2018, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Heempur, District Bijnor.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that on 28.02.2018 the informant Smt. Poonam wife of the deceased lodged an FIR stating therein that on 27.02.2018 at about 04.00 p.m. her husband Naresh and applicant had taken liquor near a brick-klin thereafter on the same day at about 10 p.m. both of them again took liquor in a mango grove and in the meantime some altercation took place between the two and her husband was assaulted by the applicant which caused serious injuries, as a result of which he died. It has been argued that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident and the recovery of saria is said to be at 10.30 a.m. on 28.02.2018 whereas the recovery memo shows that it was conducted on 1.3.2018, therefore, it cannot be taken as correct, although, blood stains were found in the weapon which can be used for assaulting the deceased. There was no reason or motive of the applicant to commit the offence, but it is also not denied that the applicant and the deceased were having liquor. It appears that due to sudden quarrel between the two, the incident had taken place for which the applicant could not be held liable for the assault. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2018. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. If possible the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Anand Sri./-