Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31967 of 2018 Applicant :- Sudhir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Saleheen Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 337 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Sardhana, District- Meerut, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident had taken place in the night and no one had witnessed the same. The deceased had received injuries as a result of his falling on the ground but the father of the deceased has falsely implicated the applicant and the other co- accused. He further contended that although in the F.I.R., it is alleged that three named persons including the applicant and one unknown person had assaulted the deceased with lathi and danda but the postmortem report of the deceased shows only two injuries, lacerated wound and multiple abrasion. In view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution case being exaggerated and false implication of several innocent persons cannot be ruled out. He lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 07.03.2018, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra Sri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the incident was witnessed by Mohit and Surajpal who in their statements recorded during the investigation have fully corroborated the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. and have assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased to the applicant Sudhir as well as Mohit and Pradeep and in view of the above, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the material on record including the F.I.R. of the incident and the postmortem report of the deceased, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Sudhir 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. 337 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Sardhana, District- Meerut, 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 :- 24.8.2018 KS