Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41134 of 2017 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 530 of 2015 u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kharkhoda, , District Meerut.
This is the Second Bail Application filed on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. The First Bail Application filed on behalf of the applicant has been rejected by this Hon'ble Court on 11.05.2017.
Contention in the Second Bail Application is that subsequent to the rejection of the First Bail Application, first informant Santram has been examined as PW-1. The copy of the statement of PW-1 annexed as Supplementary affidavit filed on 19.07.2018. Reliance has been placed on the statement of PW-1. Further contention is that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained at the time of preparation of post mortem report and as such the Viscera was preserved.
Further contention is that applicant is in jail since 19.02.2016 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram vs. State of UP and others, 2018(3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Rahul 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.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SKG