Allahabad High Court
Harish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 14 September, 2018
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 56
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19254 of 2018
Applicant :- Harish Chandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Narayan Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This is the 3rd bail application of the applicant. The Ist bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit vide order dated 24.5.2016 and the second bail application was rejected on 10.11.2016 by this court.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case during trial the statements of four witnesses have been recorded. P.W. 1 Jitendra Yadav had lodged the FIR of the alleged incident. He is not the eye witness of the alleged incident. He lodged the FIR on the information given by his brother Vijay Yadav. P.W. 1 Jitendra Yadav has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 Vijay Yadav who is said to be the eye witness of the alleged incident, has also not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Balveer Singh in his statement has stated that prior to the alleged incident no hot talk has taken place in between the deceased and the applicant. This witness has also been declared hostile. P.W. 4 Satish Yadav is said to be witness of recovery of axe used in the commission of the murder of the deceased. This witness has also been declared hostile. There is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. This is night incident. While rejecting the second bail application the trial court was directed to expedite the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order even then the trial has not been concluded. The applicant is in jail since 19.11.2015.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have not supported the prosecution version.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Harish Chandra involved in Case Crime No. 340 of 2015, under section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018
Masarrat
