The single judge granted bail to the applicant, Sanjoo, simpliciter. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. citing Supreme Court precedents to ensure speedy trial if witnesses are interrogated.
Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties; directives for speedy trial under Section 309 CrPC.
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. - 8489 of 2018
Applicant :- Sanjoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchita Jain 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 bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2017 u/s 304 IP PS Poonchh District Jhansi.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The most relevant aspect of the matter is that the first informant has been examined as PW-1 and he has been declared as hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. His statement has been annexed as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 24.2.2019. Contention is that applicant is in jail since 17.6.2017 with no criminal history 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, 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 Sanjoo 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 :- 17.4.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the pending criminal case.
Whether provisions should be made for speedy disposal of the trial in view of the length of detention.
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
Sanjoo
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha
Parties & counsel
