Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21857 of 2016 Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudeep Kumar Pathak,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Dhiresh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Singh learned AGA for the State and Sri Karunesh Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2015 u/s 302, 364, 201, 120B IPC PS Fatehganj West District Bareilly.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is in jail since 8.4.2015 with no criminal history. Further contention is that co-accused Veerpal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2.8.2018. The only distinguishing feature is that dead body of the deceased has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant after 14 days of the incident. It has not been disputed that dead body of the deceased was highly decomposed.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application of the applicant.
Keeping in view the period of detention of the applicant and the fact that trial has not yet been concluded and 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 Rajendra 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 within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order 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.
Learned counsel for the complainant has informed the Court that all the witnesses of fact have been examined.
It is made clear that none of the accused will seek any unnecessary adjournment. They will appear and participate during the trial on each and every date before the court concerned. In case the trial court finds that accused persons are trying to delay the proceedings, the respondents are at liberty to file bail cancellation application before the court concerned itself.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 SP