Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36322 of 2016 Applicant :- Yashpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.K. Sharma,Atul Sharma,Sr. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2016 u/s 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has not committed the said crime and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant which may connect the applicant to the alleged crime and there is no recovery from the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 10.07.2016.
However, the perusal of the FIR as well as the order by which the bail application has been rejected by the Court concerned shows that applicant has been named in the FIR and specific role of shooting has also been assigned to him and PW-1 who is the son of the deceased namely Hari Om has also given a statement before the court concerned that the deceased was done to death by the accused appellant namely Yashpal. Similarly, PW-2 who has also been examined before the trial Court who too also supported the case of the prosecution and has assigned the role of shooting to the applicant Yashpal.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within a period of 8 months from the production of certified copy of the order 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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Mohit Kushwaha