Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25590 of 2016 Applicant :- Mukesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 78 of 2016, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Gorakhnath, District- Gorakhpur and is in jail since 02.03.2016, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the brother of the deceased stating therein that the applicant and co-accused, Anil Yadav had set the deceased ablaze on account of dispute over money lending. There is nothing in the F.I.R. which may indicate that the informant had witnessed the occurrence. Moreover the deceased had remained alive for 15 days after the occurrence but no effort was made to get her dying declaration recorded and the F.I.R. itself was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days. It is apparent that the applicant has falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity, although there is no credible evidence on record even prima facie indicating at the applicant's complicity. He lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 2.3.2016, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial.
Let the applicant, Mukesh Chauhan 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 in Case Crime No. 78 of 2016, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Gorakhnath, District-Gorakhpur, subject to 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 informant 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 the principle as has been laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 SA