Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49450 of 2017 Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Shri Balakrishna Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and on the second bail application.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2015 u/s 147, 302, 201, 34 of IPC, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad.
It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application, P.W.1-Mauziddin and P.W.2-Subrati have been examined and they in their testimony say that they had disclosed the name of the applicant on the basis of an information received from Ramjani, mother of the deceased. Ramjani has been examined as P.W.3 and she in her statement says that "Ki maine yah ghatna ghatit hote hue nahi dekha, mughe sapne me Hamad dikhayi diya aur vah kah raha tha ki yah log mughe mar rahe hai, Rukhsana mughe marva rahi hai" Thus, it is clear that Ramjani is not an eye witness. She has disclosed the name on the basis of dream.
It has been lastly contended that applicant is in jail since 06.02.2015 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and the fact that applicant is in jail since 23.3.2016 with no criminal history, 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 Rashid 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Abhishek/ V.S. Singh