Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44444 of 2018 Applicant :- Ajeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Police Station - Jarcha, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar.
As per prosecution version, on 02.04.2018 at about 06.30 A.M., applicant Ajeet assaulted Shakuntala Devi, Ratendra and Pushpendra, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of informant Pooja Tomar by iron rod, due to some dispute regarding partition. Due to the injuries, Shakuntala Devi died on the spot, while Pushpendra succumbed to his injuries later on.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the injury report does not support the version of the prosecution. The incised wound sustained by deceased Shakuntala Devi cannot be caused by an iron rod. The injured have sustained injury in the midnight of 01/02.04.2018 in the incident of dacoity. Witnesses of fact - Jagdish, Mohit and Ratendra have filed affidavit before the court in which they have not supported the prosecution version. The first information report has been lodged by the informant after due deliberation of her uncle Ravindra. Moreover, the first information report is ante- timed. In the panchayatnama, time of lodging the FIR is not mentioned.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and the submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. He contended that this is a case of daylight double murder. First information report has been lodged without any delay. Deceased Shakuntala Devi has sustained injury on the top of skull. Incised wound might have occurred on the top of skull due to blow given by iron rod.
Affidavit is not admissible in evidence, either during investigation or during trial.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
In view of above, the prayer so made is refused.
Accordingly, the instant application stands rejected. Order Date :- 27.11.2018 I. Batabyal