Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23131 of 2017 Applicant :- Aamod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Aamod Kumar in Case Crime No.353 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Usrahar, District Etawah.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the police arrived and undertook an inquest on the basis of G.D. entry no. 20 dated 08.11.2016 registered at 9:15 A.M. at the police station; that during inquest proceedings brother of the deceased was present and is one of the panch witnesses; that the post mortem was commenced at 3:40 P.M. and concluded at 4:15 PM.; that by contrast a perusal of the chik report shows that the same was registered on 08.11.2016 at 5.30 P.M. mentioning the time of incident to be 8:00 A.M. and in the said FIR the informant says that the dead body is lying at the place of occurrence; that in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant the aforesaid facts are so irreconcilable which shows the FIR to be absolutely ante-timed and lodged on a premeditated and with a tailor made prosecution version that is utterly false; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history, who is in jail as an under trial since 10.11.2016.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that perusal of the FIR shows that there is a categorical prosecution case by an eye witness who has assigned the role of shooting the deceased to the applicant and no other amongst the assailants. In the submission of the learned AGA the discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant is a matter which cannot be examined at this stage.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing against the applicant at this stage but without expressing any opinion on merits, does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application stands rejected at this stage.
It is made clear that anything said in this order will have no effect on the rights of the parties and issues involved that are to be determined by the trial court.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial court will proceed and conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that after the same witness of fact has been examined if the applicant so desired, he may renew his plea for bail through a fresh application.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Imroz