Allowed

Nasir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAIL/17190/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the second bail application by Nasir in a prosecution for attempted murder and murder, the single judge granted bail after noting that a considerable period had elapsed and prima facie a case for bail was made out, relying on Apex Court guidelines for speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in trial and not tampering with evidence.

Nasir Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17190 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Nasir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 26.2.2016 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 26956 of 2014.

¶7

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

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is to the effect that the applicant is in jail since 26.4.2013 with no previous criminal history and since then a period of more than five years and six months has already elapsed. Further contention is that during trial, four persons have been examined as witness and all the four witnesses have assigned the general role to all the seven accused persons, out of them one accused has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, a fact which has not been disputed by the learned AGA and by the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that the applicant is not co-operating with the trial.

¶10

If that be the case, liberty is give to the complainant to file a bail cancellation application in case the applicant does not appear before the court below on the concerned date that may be fixed by the court below. The said bail cancellation application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant Nasir 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:

¶17

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶18

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Kuldeep

Nasir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir 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

Pavan Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Tiwari @ Sonu Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Mukhtyar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Ramsingare Vs State of U.P.