Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47519 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shravan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 382 of 2018, under Sections 302, 364, 201 I.P.C., P.S.- NOIDA Sector-58, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is contended by Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased Vandana Maheshwari went missing on 17.06.2018. Her missing report was lodged on 21.06.2018 by her brother Sachin Maheshwari in which no name was mentioned. On 03.07.2018, the father of the deceased lodged a F.I.R. against the applicant and co-accused Amit Paltani alleging commission of offences by them u/s 364 I.P.C. It is next contended that co-accused Amit Paltani is the employer of the applicant who has been working as his driver. An unknown dead body was recovered in Mathura on 17.06.2018 which was identified from its photograph as that of deceased by her father. Thereafter on 05.07.2018, the statements of Dheeraj, Baljot Singh and Kamal Mishra who were taxi driver, rickshaw pullers were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had stated that the deceased used to regularly go with co-accused Amit Paltani in his car which was driven by the applicant and on the date she went missing, the deceased had gone with co-accused in his car. He next submitted that apart from the last seen evidence, there is no material on record connecting the applicant with the murder of the deceased. No incriminating article was recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. He lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 06.07.2018, is entitled to be released on bail.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Sanjay 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 in Case Crime No. 382 of 2018, under Sections 302, 364, 201 I.P.C., P.S.- NOIDA Sector-58, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, subject to 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 informant 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, 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 :- 29.5.2019 KS