Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1548 of 2016 Applicant :- Sanjai Sahni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 764 of 2014 u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Brijmanganj District Maharajganj.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that FIR has been lodged in pursuance of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The application itself shows that this fact has been admitted to the prosecution that the applicant who happens to be the husband was not present at the place of occurrence. It clearly mentions that "mere damad rozgar ke silsile me barabar bahar rahte the."
A supplementary affidavit has been filed today i.e. 26.7.2018 along with the statement of PW-1, the first informant. In the testimony of PW-1 also it clearly mentions that "ham logo ke pahuchne ke baad hamari ladki sangeeta ke pati Sanjay dedh ghante baad pahuche us waqt Sanjay mazdoori karne Gorakhpur gaye the."
The record also shows that applicant is in jail since 19.3.2015 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Further there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram vs. State of UP and others, 2018(3) SCC 22, 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 Sanjai Sahni 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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 SP