The court considered the lack of eye witness account, absence of previous criminal history, and the likelihood of delay in trial due to heavy pendency of cases as key factors in granting bail to the applicant.

Vipin Sinha, J.

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

2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2016, under Sections 302, 120B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Face-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

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

4. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by showing false recovery; the recovery as shown is totally false and fabricated; the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and after a period of about 8 days in the confessional statement of co-accused, the name of the applicant has cropped up even in the said statement allegation against the applicant is that he has hatched a conspiracy; there is no eye witness account which may show any active participation of the applicant in the alleged crime; the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 26.05.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.

6. 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.

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

8. Let the applicant Sandeep @ Sanni involved in the aforesaid case 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.

9. 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.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided 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 , if there is no legal impediment.

11. 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.

12. Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.