Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case pending trial, directing surrender on personal and local sureties. The order also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.
The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27292 of 2018
Applicant :- Vickky @ Chhedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Chandan Bhagat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Vickky @ Chhedi with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2016, under Sections 307/302 I.P.c., Police Station Medical, District Meerut.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that for the incident dated 05.04.2016 at 7.00 p.m. three persons have been named in the FIR. All the accused persons have been assigned the role of beating the injured by lathi and danda, due to which he has sustained serious injuries. During course of treatment, the injured expired on 20.04.2016, therefore, the case was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. It is argued that in the statement of the injured general role of assaulting by lathi and danda has been assigned to all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the order sheet of the court below which goes to show that trial is not going to conclude in near future. Learned counsel has also pressed this bail application on the period of detention as the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2016. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the
dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant in a murder case (IPC Sections 302/307) should be granted bail upon furnishing sureties.
Whether the trial court should expedite the conclusion of the trial once bail is granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶15
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440 · Who else cites this
Vickky @ Chhedi
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
