Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25599 of 2016 Applicant :- Ram Vilas Opposite Party :- State Ofu.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,Bed Kant Mishra,Sita Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 133/2016 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P Act police station Naubasta District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that though it is correct that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive but nevertheless the fact remains that the incident had occurred in the parental house of the wife and in the FIR nothing has been said about the presence of the applicant in the parental house of the deceased; reliance has been placed upon the testimony of PW-1 Ram Babu Sahu, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record; there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant to show the presence of the applicant at the house of his in-laws and on the date of alleged incident applicant was present before the court concerned as the proceeding under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act has been pending before the court concerned; the applicant is in jail since 4.3.2016 with no previous criminal history and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.
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 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 Ram Vilas involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly 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, it would be open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Anand