Aurangjeb vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1730 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12636 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Aurangjeb
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Singh
 
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.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 17 of 2016, under Sections 392, 411, 120B IPC,  police station Haliya, District Mirzapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive by showing false recovery. It is further contended that the alleged recovery has been duly explained in paragraph no. 10 to the bail application. It is also contended that co-accused Rakibuddin has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, copy of which has been annexed with the bail application. It is lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 16.1.16 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the investigation is now complete and a chargesheet has already been submitted. No Investigation is now left.

It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.

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 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 Aurangjeb involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction  of court concerned.

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 if there is no legal impediment.

It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 22.4.2016

Anand