Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20982 of 2016 Applicant :- Rifaqat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh,Gaurav Kakkar,Malti Sharma,Mukesh Kumar Jha,Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Tripathi
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Raghvendra Prakash holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Agrahari learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2016 u/s 364, 302, 201 IPC PS Pilkhuwa District Hapur.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that deceased had gone missing on 9.1.2016 with regard to which a missing report has been lodged on 12.1.2016 in which applicant was not named, however subsequently on 16.1.2016 an FIR was lodged in which applicant was not named and in the FIR two persons were named namely Anek Pal and Bijnesh. Subsequently on the basis of the statement of Anek Pal the applicant has been implicated in the present case. The applicant has been further implicated on the basis of alleged confession said to have been made before one Kallu. Apart from that, there is no other evidence which may show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime. Contention is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The recovery, if any, is from co-accused Anek Pal as per the recovery memo annexed as Annexue-SA-3 with the supplementary affidavit dated 6.10.2017. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 4.3.2016 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 Rifaqat 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 :- 28.3.2018 SP