Suneel vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Vipin Sinha, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

This is IIIrd bail application moved by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.323 of 2012 under section 323,504,506,436,304 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad.

The First bail application was rejected by order dated 2.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23679 of 2014 with the specific direction to the Court below :-

"However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, if possible within a period of one year strictly, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement 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".

The second bail application was rejected by order dated 27.4.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7314 of 2017 with the specific direction to the court below :-

"However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, if possible within a period of eight months strictly, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement 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 appears that during the pendency of this IIIrd bail application, this Court granted short term bail vide order dated 16.2.2018 for a period of six months starting from 22.2.2018.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that inspite of specific direction issued in earlier two Bail Applications for the trial to be concluded. Only P.W.3 has been examined till date and the trial has not yet been concluded. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.2.2014.

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that despite specific directions given by this Court, trial of the applicant has not been concluded as yet.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant Suneel 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.

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance. ified copy of this order to the court concerned for information and its necessary compliance.