Hon'ble Court allowed the second bail application of Saddam in a criminal case involving Section 376D IPC and POCSO Act, granting bail on personal bond and sureties with conditions prohibiting tampering and ensuring trial court expediency.
Release on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering and ensuring appearance.
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. - 6746 of 2019
Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Vilas Mishra,Chaman Aara Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376D, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 67 of I.T. Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 31.8.2018 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 33033 of 2018.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.
It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application, the other co-accused, namely, Sameer, Asif and Wasim have been granted bail vide order dated 23.1.2019 passed by another Bench of this Court, copy of the order has been annexed with the bail application and since the identically placed accused have been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled to grant of bail. It is next contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 7.5.2017 with no previous criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has though opposed the bail application of the applicant, however, he has not disputed the factum of parity.
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 Saddam 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 further 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 19.7.2019 Kuldeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present bail application should be allowed given that co-accused have been granted bail.
Whether the bond conditions ensure the applicant will not tamper with evidence or fail to appear.
Whether the trial court should decide the case expeditiously under Section 309 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 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
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Saddam
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
