Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17271 of 2017 Applicant :- Muhmmad Azad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of Muhmmad Azad in connection with Case Crime No. 1483 of 2016 under Sections 452, 326, 304 IPC, P.S. Saray, District Mau.
Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that throughout the prosecution case there is a wavering stand proceeding from the FIR, across the statement under Section 161, the dying declaration, the statement of the sister of the victim who is said to be an eye witness one Km. Rozi and another independent witness all of whom go to say that no one actually saw the assailant; that it is a case where the deceased was assaulted to her back while she was in the kitchen; that it is a case where the FIR was lodged based on impressions of an earlier skirmish with a neighbour, one Govinda and Marchhiya, the mother of Govinda; that there is no evidence of the kind that can bring home a charge under Section 304 IPC; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 28.09.2016, a period of one year and a half as an under trial.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea with the submission that there is a dying declaration where the applicant has been named and otherwise also the first informant has named the applicant as one of the assailants whose name figures throughout the statement of prosecution witnesses in one form or other as part of the multitude who committed the assault. He submits that the other subtle arguments pointing out fine infirmities in the prosecution case cannot be gone into at this stage which are better left to be judged at the trial.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
However, it is directed that the applicant having spent a year and a half in jail as an under trial, the case case which is reported not to be committed as yet is directed to be committed within 15 days by the Magistrate concerned from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which shall be forwarded by the office forthwith through the C.J.M., Mau. The trial court from the date of committal will proceed with the trial and conclude the same preferably within six months next in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses do not appear, the trial court shall initiate strict coercive measures to ensuring their attendance. Once, a witness appear, he/she will not be discharged until his/her evidence is concluded.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance through the CJM, Mau.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Deepak