Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16292 of 2018 Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R. P. Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Shri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The applicant has moved this bail application in Case Crime No. 259 of 2012 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 34 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3(1) Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
This is the fourth bail application. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 10.2.2014 with specific direction to the court concerned to conclude the trial within a period of one year. Subsequently the second bail application was rejected on 9.2.2016 with the further direction to conclude trial in next one year. Subsequently the third bail application was rejected on 30.5.2017.
The contention of the applicant is that in spite of specific directions of this Court the trial has not yet been concluded. It is next contended that the applicant is senior citizen and aged about 73 years and suffering from various ailments. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
It has further been contended that applicant is in jail since 19.02.2012 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Om Prakash Singh 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Abhishek