The court granted bail in a second application noting that prosecution witnesses retracted their statements. The release is subject to bonds and conditions, with a direction to the trial court to decide the case swiftly.
Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and harassing witnesses.
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. - 13900 of 2018
Applicant :- Janu Alias Anuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2016 u/s 302 IPC PS Firozabad South District Firozabad. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.1.2017.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in the second bail application is that subsequently when the first informant Manoj was examined in pursuance of an order passed under Section 311 CrPC, he has denied the entire prosecution story. The statement of the first informant Manoj examined as PW-1 has been annexed at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2018. Further contention is that similarly, Raj Kumari has been examined as PW-2 and she has also changed her version and has not supported the prosecution case. The statement of PW-2 Raj Kumari has been annexed at page 35 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.12.2018. Contention is that applicant is in jail since 21.5.2016 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Sri R.K. Maurya, learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the subsequent development, 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 Janu Alias Anuj 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 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.
Order Date :- 15.2.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in the light of prosecution witnesses changing their statements.
Whether the trial court should decide the pending case expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶18
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶18
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Janu Alias Anuj
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
