Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15382 of 2016 Applicant :- Ravi Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Irfan Hasan,P K Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2015, under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that initially an application was given to the police in which nobody was named; subsequently again an application was given to the police in which the applicant was named on the basis of suspicion; there is no direct evidence against the applicant which may show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime; there is no last seen evidence; there is no recovery from the applicant and the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of some alleged illicit relationship. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.7.2015 with no previous criminal history and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ravi Gupta involved in the aforesaid case 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.
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, if there is no legal impediment, 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.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Kuldeep