The court granted bail to the applicant in a third application involving charges of kidnapping, abduction, rape, and offences under POCSO. The order emphasized speedy trial and directed coercive measures if witnesses fail to appear.
Release on personal bond with two sureties under specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11125 of 2019
Applicant :- Azaruddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Salempur, District Bulandshahr. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders of this Court dated 20.3.2017 and 3.1.2018.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first and second bail rejection orders.
It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of first and second bail applications, the victim has been examined as PW2 during trial where she has been declared as hostile, copy of the said statement is annexed at page no. 46 of the bail application. It is next contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 6.10.2016 and in case he 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, 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 Azaruddin 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 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.
Order Date :- 19.7.2019 Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the third bail application.
Whether the trial court should decide the pending case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶20
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Azaruddin
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
