Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in case crime No. 0025 of 2016, under Sections 382, 411 IPC, police station Atmaddaula, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicants is that the accused-applicants have not been named in the FIR and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive after a period of about six days by showing false recovery of some ornaments. It is further contended that the said ornaments belongs to the applicants. It is also contended that no identification parade has been done. It is next contended that the applicants have no previous criminal history and they are in jail since 12.1.16 and in case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.
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 will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicants, namely, Sharif alias Sukkha and Suhail involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission, of which they are suspected.
5. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them 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, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 20.4.2016 Anand