Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24654 of 2018 Applicant :- Matganjan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rajkumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Om Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2016 u/s 376, 306, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Pahari, District Chitrakoot.
This is the third Bail Application on behalf of the applicant. The first Bail Application No. 3810 of 2017 preferred by the Applicant has been rejected on 02.05.2017 and the second Bail Application No. 49008 of 2016 has also been rejected on 22.03.2018.
The contention is that after the rejection of the second Bail Application Sri Ram Sanehi has been examined as PW-2 in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016 (State Vs. Matganjan). He has been declared hostile. He has denied the prosecution story. The certified copy of the statement has been annexed in Page 29 of IIIrd Bail Application. Further contention is that applicant is in jail since 06.10.2016 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 and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram vs. State of UP 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 not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Rahul 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 :- 24.8.2018 SKG