In a bail application, the High Court granted bail citing changed circumstances where previous witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The Court imposed standard bail conditions and directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously under Cr.P.C. Section 309.
Release on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.
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. - 41579 of 2018
Applicant :- Pinki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad 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. 213 of 2016 u/s 302, 376, 201, 120B IPC PS Fugana District Muzaffar Nagar. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.4.2017.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, two of the persons who were introduced as giving the evidence of last seen have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3 namely Umarlal and Krishna and they have not supported the prosecution case. Their statements have been annexed with the second bail application. Contention is that applicant is in jail since 11.12.2016 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 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 Pinki involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her 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 :- 3.5.2019 SP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a case for bail is made out prima facie in view of the changed circumstances.
Whether the applicant is required to furnish a personal bond and sureties.
Whether the trial court is directed to 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
Pinki
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
