Allowed

Saddam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2018BAIL/1425/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J., allowed a second bail application for an accused in a Section 302 IPC case. Bail was granted prima facie, directing the lower court to decide the pending undertrial case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. to avoid prolonged incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by furnishing personal bond and two local sureties; trial to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Saddam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1425 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.628/16 under Sections 302 IPC police station Masoori, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 8.2.2017.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.

¶8

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; after rejection of the first bail application, PW-1 Rahees the main witness has been examined in S.T. No. 1496/2016 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared as hostile; the applicant is in jail since 8.10.2016 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Saddam involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶17

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶18

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 the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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.

¶20

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible 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 cases 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 .

¶21

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.

¶22

A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.2.2018 Anand

Saddam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samosa @ Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ramvati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajendra @ Gajjoo Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Singh Vs State of U.P.

monu alias ikram Vs State of U.P.

deepak Vs State of U.P.