Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8947 of 2017 Applicant :- Rauf Ali @ Shan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dipak Srivastava
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 620 of 2015, under Sections 302, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Haji Usman has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 38756 of 2016. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co- accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 25.7.2016 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
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 Rauf Ali alias Shan involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on 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.
(vi) 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, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, if possible, within a period of 8 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this 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 :- 19.4.2017 MT**