Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45853 of 2015 Applicant :- Modh. Nasir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadh Bihari Pandey
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in ST No.1047 of 2011, Case Crime No.251 of 2010 u/s 302, 504, 506, 120B IPC PS Anwarganj District Kanpur Nagar. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2015, however, while rejecting the first bail application a direction was issued to the concerned court below to conclude the trial within a period of six months.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
It is contended that the trial has not yet been concluded till date in spite of there being a specific direction of this Court for the trial to be concluded within six months.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that this is 2018 and till date trial has not been concluded. Further contention is that applicant is in jail since 22.12.2010 with no criminal history. Contention is that proceedings under Section 313 CrPC are pending as on date and today was the date fixed for recording the said statement.
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, solely on the ground that applicant is in jail since 22.12.2010 and a period of seven and half years has elapsed 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, 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 Mohd. Nasir 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 trial of the aforesaid case may now be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in view of the fact that earlier a direction was issued to the court concerned for the trial to be concluded within six months and 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.
It is directed that applicant shall appear on each and every date without seeking any adjournment. The court concerned will not grant any adjournment to either parties, but in exceptional circumstances. In case any adjournment is granted, the court concerned will give reasons for granting adjournment.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 SP