Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21327 of 2018 Applicant :- Naresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Applicant- Naresh Kumar seeks bail in Case Crime No. 509 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Meerut.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wholly innocent and has not committed any offence of forgery or cheating. It is argued that he was not aware of the real fact that the plot in question of which the title and ownership was of Smt. Dhan Kaur. The applicant in good faith appended his signature on the sale deed dated 10.06.2008 in which in place of the real owner her impostor had executed the sale deed in favour of Rajveer. It is argued that merely he was a marginal witness of the sale deed. No mala fide intention can be imputed against him. Lastly, it is contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.09.2011 for offences which are triable by the Magistrate Ist Class. It is further pointed out that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and the prosecution has not adduced any evidence till date as is reflected from the certified copy of the order-sheet of the trial. Therefore, the applicant, who is in jail for the past seven years may be enlarged on bail during trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal and has chequered history of about sixteen criminal cases out out which three cases are under Section 302 I.P.C. He further submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it is admitted that the applicant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. in Case Crime No.270/99, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut and had been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by a judgment and order dated 01.11.2010. Besides it, the applicant is involved in other heinous offences also. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, as there is every possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the long criminal history of the applicant and that he is also a previous convict, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, though, he is incarcerated in jail since 2011. The prayer for grant of bail is declined at this stage.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
However, considering the period of detention of the applicant and the manner in which the trial is progressing against the applicant in which the witnesses are not turning up for adducing their evidence and from the order-sheet it appears that the learned Magistrate is also not taking any stern action for securing the attendance of witnesses on account of which till date not a single witness has been examined, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and take all possible coercive steps to secure the attendance of witnesses and conclude the trial in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Office is also directed to communicate the order to the concerned court at the earliest for ensuring its compliance.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Vikas