Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45087 of 2017 Applicant :- Uma Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dewarshi Kumar Rai,Vijay Kumar Pal 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. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2017.
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 applicant is that after rejection of the first bail application, co-accused Kumari Devi has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court, copy of which has been annexed with the bail application. He further submits 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 lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.6.2016.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently 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, 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.
In view of the above, let the applicant Uma Shankar 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. 119/2016, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Kapsethi, District Varanasi subject to the following conditions:
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.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
5. The applicant 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 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, it would be 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 cases of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India in Crl. Appeal No. 509 of 2017 decided on 9th March, 2017, 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 :- 23.2.2018 Anand