Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1260 (ALL)

Satish v. State of U. P.

2016-04-06

VIPIN SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order. 3. 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. It is further contended that a Gumshudgi report was lodged after five days, in which the applicant was not named. The FIR of this case was lodged for the first time after nine days on the basis of heresy evidence. 4. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application by contending that there is a statement which show that there is a last seeing evidence against the applicant. It is next contended that this statement has been recorded after three months on 9.3. 2015. The learned counsel for the applicants states that except the confessional statement of the applicant there is no other evidence by which it may be established that the applicant participated in the commission of the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 10.1.2015. 5. 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. 6. After due consideration of the material evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, case for bail is made out at this stage. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 7. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Satish 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. 4 of 2015, under Sections 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffarnagar on 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. 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. 9. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail. 10. However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.1.2015, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of one year strictly, 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 .