Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31987 of 2018 Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 41 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Atmadpur, District- Agra, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. which was lodged by one Bahadur Singh, husband of the deceased, who was subsequently arraigned as the main accused in the present case nor in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. His name as an accused surfaced for the first time in the statement of informant, Bahadur Singh. The co-accused Bahadur Singh has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 29.08.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26910 of 2015. No incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession of or on the pointing out of the applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 26.05.2018, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant contended that he has explained the criminal history of the applicant in paragraph 14 (Annexure No. 9) of the affidavit accompanying the bail application wherein the applicant was granted bail in two cases in which he was accused.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Rakesh 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 in Case Crime No. 41 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Atmadpur, District- Agra, subject to 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 informant 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, 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 :- 24.8.2018 KS