Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21048 of 2018
Applicant :- Parvez Alam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Shantanu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ronak Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant are taken on record.
Vide order dated 09.01.2018 passed in Bail Application No.20926 of 2016 after granting bail the court had directed the trial to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of order dated 09.01.2019. Again vide order dated 30.03.2018 the trial was directed to be concluded expeditiously, but till date there is nothing on record to show the stage of the trial even after examination of seven prosecution witnesses.
Heard Sri Shantanu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Parvej Alam with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2015, under Sections 452, 302, 307, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Seohara, District Bijnor.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case of sudden fight and according to the prosecution, the applicant and other accused were hurling abuses on the first informant and his family members, on being objected, the applicant and other co- accused entered the house and assaulted the deceased Azam by lathi danda and sharp edge weapon. It is argued that in the FIR general role of assault has been attributed to the applicant and other named and one unknown accused; during investigation, the applicant has been attributed role of causing injury to the deceased by lathi. It is further submitted that the deceased died after 22 days of the incident on account of septicemia and in the medico legal examination report conducted on 5.7.2015 doctor has noted one incised wound on the head and remaining four are abraded contusion and a traumatic swelling on left forehead. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report, complication developed underneath injury no.1 on account of which deceased died as a result of septicemia; so far as other injuries are concerned, they are simple in nature. It is next argued that co-accused, namely, Sarfaraz and Aman, having identical role, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.03.2018 and 9.1.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.16497 and 20926 of 2016 respectively. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.07.2015. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
In case the defence witnesses are not appearing then an application may be moved requesting for cancellation of bail before the concerned court.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Anand Sri./-