Allahabad High Court
Rahul @ Moni vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2019
Author: Vipin Sinha
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5006 of 2018 Applicant :- Rahul @ Moni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.
In the supplementary, it has been mentioned that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.7.2018 the applicant has surrendered before the court concerned on 2.2.2019 and in this regard the trial court has passed the order on 2.2.2019 itself. The said copy of the order is annexed as annexure no. SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.7.2019.
Now the Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present fourth bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 370 of 2014, under Sections 394, 307, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Gulawathi, District Bulandshahar. The first, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide order of this Court dated 5.1.2016, 24.8.2016 and 20.3.2017, respectively.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first, second and third bail rejection orders.
The present fourth bail application is being pressed that the applicant is in jail since 2.11.2014 that too with no previous criminal history and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at an early date. It is contended that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, 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 of this Court 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 Rahul @ Moni involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly 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, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
It is made clear that the applicant will not seek any adjournment before the trial court and the trial court is directed not to grant any adjournment but for exceptional circumstances and that too by means of a reasoned and speaking order.
Order Date :- 2.8.2019 Kuldeep