Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24282 of 2019 Applicant :- Robin Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Avanindra Kumar Mishra,Yogendra Pati Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2019, under Section 302, IPC, Police Station Sasanigate, District Aligarh.
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant has been rejected.
Contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of alleged last seen evidence; that the FIR has been lodged after two days of the alleged incident and that too after the body was recovered from Mathura Hiway and Panchayat Nama was done; that there is no other evidence, which may show participation of the present applicant in the alleged crime; that the recovery of knife, if any, is that too from an open place and has not yet been connected the crime. The further contention is that the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2019, with no previous criminal history.
Learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the bail application, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, 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 Robin 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, 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, 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.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 VKG