Allahabad High Court
Salman Khan vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2021
Author: Naheed Ara Moonis
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3227 of 2019 Applicant :- Salman Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad,Ahmad Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Salman Khan with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.828 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia during the pendency of trial. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2018.
The said order is reproduced as under:
"On the case being taken up, no-one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the instant bail application filed in Case Crime No.828 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia.
Learned AGA is present.
The present bail application has been filed in the year 2016 seeking bail in the aforesaid offence. The non-appearance of the learned counsel for the applicant demonstrates that the applicant is not interested to pursue the remedy. The present bail application cannot be allowed to dilate sine die in the camouflage of its pendency as mere long pendency of the bail application would not serve any purpose.
The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the court below through FAX within a week."
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and also perused the material placed on record.
According to the prosecution case, an FIR was registered on 28.5.2016 in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 17.5.2016 that the complainant was running a furniture shop. His cousin brother-in-law, namely, Mohd. Qaish was working at the shop. On 27.5.2015 in the night at about 9.15 P.M. his cousin brother-in-law had left his shop, but he did not return back. On the next morning, the complainant was informed that a dead body was found lying nearby railway station. The complainant lodged the report about his death after identifying the dead body suspecting that some unknown person has committed murder with sharp edged weapon. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted in which as many as eight incised wounds were found on the person of the deceased. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the complainant has disclosed that the victim was murdered by unknown person.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been roped in the present case merely on suspicion. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and there was no evidence that the applicant was last seen in the company of the victim (deceased). The alleged weapon of assault is said to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant on 31.5.2016 and the applicant has been connected with the present case.
It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses of facts have been examined but in their testimony there is no direct evidence with regard to participation of the applicant along with his brother Shanu in the commission of offence. There is great inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses which belie the prosecution case about the involvement of the deceased with the wife of Shanu, the co-accused. The prosecution witness Ashfaq Ahmad was examined as P.W-9 on 12.2.2020. Thereafter due to spread of Covid-19 Pandamic, the trial is proceeding in snail's pace. There is no prospect of trial being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant who is languishing in jail since 31.5.2016 deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail he will cooperate with the trial and will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant contending that in case the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Salman Khan involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. Every effort will be made to provide Video Conference Facilities to the applicant but in the light of Section 317of the Cr.P.C , the trial will go on to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of six months.
2. That in the event that the video conference facilities are available, the applicant would be allowed access to his lawyers through the aforesaid facility so that the final arguments in the trial proceed.
3. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during trial.
4. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
5. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 M. Tariq