High Court Court No. 51 allowed bail for the applicant in a murder case. Justice Vipin Sinha granted bail subject to conditions, directed expeditious trial, and ordered coercive measures to ensure witness presence.
Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to undertaking not to tamper with evidence or harass witnesses and to appear as required.
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. - 15072 of 2019
Applicant :- Vijay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Narain Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 793 of 2013 u/s 302 IPC PS Gauri Bazar District Deoria.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is in jail since 19.8.2015 with no criminal history, however till date even in the trial the first informant has been examined as PW-1 and he has not supported the prosecution case. Similarly, Adalat Yadav has been examined as PW-2 and he has been declared as hostile. Even though much reliance has been placed on the statement of PW-2 who had earlier claimed to be an eye witness but from his testimony it is apparent that he had not seen the incident. Similarly, PW-3 has also been declared as hostile. Further contention is that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of confessional statement of Ram Asare Yadav, otherwise there is no other evidence which may show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime.
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 Vijay Yadav 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 :- 7.8.2019 SP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for bail should be allowed under the given facts.
Whether the direction for expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. is applicable.
Whether coercive measures should be initiated if prosecution witnesses fail to appear.
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
Vijay Yadav
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
