Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7153 of 2018 Applicant :- Siraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.399 of 2016 ST No.434 of 2016 u/s 302 IPC PS Sikandrabad District Bulandshahr. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail rejection of the applicant, the co-accused Mujammil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11743 of 2017. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.6.2016.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A. G.
A. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A. G. A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of the above, let the applicant Siraj 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 the aforesaid case 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 SP