Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37754 of 2015 Applicant :- Manjit @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Indrapal,Brij Lal Shukla,Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,J B Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 277/2015 under Section 302 IPC & 7 C.L.A. Act police station Dankaur, District Gautambudha Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and it has been mentioned in the FIR that three persons have assigned the role of indiscriminate firing and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; the applicant is in jail since 3.6.2015 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that the applicant has been assigned specific role of firing by the witnesses, namely, Sazil and Atique Khan.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and also looking to the seriousness of the allegations as made in the FIR, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected, at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously within a period of eight months on day to day basis 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.
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.
Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
It is also made clear that in case, the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of time, liberty is given to the applicant to file a fresh bail application.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Anand