Single judge granted bail to the applicant accused under IPC sections 396, 307, 412, and 216, subject to bond and sureties. The court directed expeditious disposal and coercive measures for witnesses.
Prayer for bail granted; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions. Trial court directed to decide case expeditiously.
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. - 44261 of 2017
Applicant :- Kamesh @ Chini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Bhanu Prakash Verma,Kamal Dev Pandey,Siya Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Pandey
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Km Meena, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri B.P. Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2017 u/s 396, 307, 412, 216 IPC PS Kotwali District Mathura.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the applicant was not named in the FIR, subsequently it appears that a police encounter took place in which six persons were arrested and after showing recovery of some material from six persons, they have been implicated in the present case. The present applicant is one of those six persons. Further contention is that as far as question of CCTV footage is concerned, only two persons were identified from CCTV footage namely Ranga and Saurabh. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the affidavit filed by the State (paragraph 5) which has been duly perused by this Court. With regard to recovery it has been submitted that as far as the recovery from the possession of the applicant is concerned, the same is 22 pieces which look like diamond. As far as recovery of gold is concerned, it has been submitted that the gold was recovered at the joint pointing out of the accused persons from the house of Harshvardhan. Harshwardhan has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court. Contention is that even if it is believed to be true that the injured person had seen the accused persons at the scene of crime, why was the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and none was named in the FIR. It has not been disputed that Harshwardhan has been granted bail. It has also not been disputed that other persons namely Vishnu and Aditya Kumar have also been granted bail by different Benches of this Court. As far as criminal history of the present applicant is concerned, the same being criminal history of four cases has been explained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.11.2017. Contention is that after his arrest he has been further implicated in three other cases. Further contention is that applicant is in jail since 21.5.2017 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have 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 Kamesh @ Chini 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 :- 15.5.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused in cases under Sections 396, 307, 412, 216 IPC.
Whether directions should be issued for expeditious disposal of the pending charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaReferred¶19
Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamesh @ Chini
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
