Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40131 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra @Motu@Sahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjai Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1808 of 2017, under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant has been named in the FIR along with three other co-accused, however, all the co-accused including the applicant has been assigned the role of assault by an axe and no specific role has been assigned to any of the co-accused; the first informant claims himself to be an eye-witness, however he in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not assigned any specific role to any of the accused, subsequently he in his second statement has assigned the role of causing injury by an axe to the present applicant. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 2.9.2017 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.
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 of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Surendra @Motu@Sahadur involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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 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 :- 26.10.2018 Kuldeep