Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24878 of 2016 Applicant :- Satyapal alias Satyaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava,V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Tiwari
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Satyapal alias Satyaveer Singh in Case Crime No.808 of 2014, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Iglas, District-Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned senior counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. During investigation evidence of last seen has been collected against the applicant. According to the prosecution, the applicant had used the mobile phone of one Sunder Singh, Chawmeen seller from which the deceased was called on the spot. Thereafter, three of them, co-accused, applicant and the deceased left the place. Three of the witnesses of last seen were interrogated who have seen the applicant in the company of the deceased. Then statement of one Amit Sharma was recorded who has stated that co-accused, Premveer Singh alias Languria and the applicant were having conversation that they will eliminate the deceased and later on on the next day the dead body of the deceased was found. There is extra judicial confession of co- accused,Premveer Singh alias Languria which is inadmissible in evidence. It is next stated that first bail of co-accused, Premveer Singh alias Languria was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court. However, on account of some development and fresh ground, he was granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Second) No.8302 of 2017 vide order dated 13.04.2018. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant who has suffered incarceration of more than four years and is in jail since 11.11.2014, also deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that there is ample evidence on record by way of call detail report of mobile of Chowmeen vendor, Sunder Singh that his mobile was used for calling the deceased at that time and calls also tally. They have further submitted that co-accused, Premvir alias Languria has taken Rs.60,000/- for providing job to the deceased and when he asked for return of money, a young boy (deceased) was murdered in a pre-planned manner by the applicant and his associates. However, they could not dispute that the co-accused,Premveer Singh alias Languria has been granted bail. They have further submitted that four witnesses of fact have been examined and trial is going on which may be directed to be concluded within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Satyapal alias Satyaveer Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. The trial court is further directed to take stern, strict and coercive measures to secure and procure the presence of witnesses, if they are not turning up in the trial.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 MN/-