Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34334 of 2017 Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kharag Singh,Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ram Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 232/2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act police station Soraon District Kasganj (Kashiram Nagar) with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.4.2017.
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 the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; till date only one witness has been examined and the applicant is in jail since 29.8.2016 with no previous criminal history; the victim was in a consensual relationship with the accused; much reliance has been placed upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., contents of which are self explicit; the applicant is in jail since 29.8.2016 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the investigation is now complete and a chargesheet has already been submitted. No Investigation is now left.
It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.
Looking to the period of detention, 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.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Yogesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned 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 he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he 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 him 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, 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 case 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 :- 27.7.2018 Anand