Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38022 of 2018 Applicant :- Amit Paltani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimlendu Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shravan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavits filed by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, are taken on record.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant had no concern and no motive to cause death of Vandana Maheswari; that the deceased was resident of Gautam Budh Ngaar and is alleged to be missing since 16.6.2018, as per the missing report lodged by her brother on 21.6.2018; that the body of deceased was recovered on 17.6.2018 within the District Mathura on Yamuna Express Way, regarding which a report was lodged by police officer on 23.6.2018 at P.S. Naujheel, District Mathura against unknown; that the unknown body recovered on 17.6.2018 was identified to be that of deceased Vandana Maheswari by her father and brothers on the basis of clothes of dead body preserved at Mathura; that on 3.7.2018, the father of deceased lodged F.I.R. against applicant and another under section 364 IPC with the contention that deceased was likely to visit Agra with applicant on 16.6.2018 and has neither returned as yet nor is traceable, so he has every suspicion over the applicant and his driver Sanjay Kumar of kidnapping and murder of his daughter; that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant except the statements of taxi driver Dheeraj and rickshaw pullers Baljot Singh and Kamal Mishra as well as Mahendra Singh, Vijay Kumar and Prabhakar Pathak security guards of G.I.P. Mall, Gautam Budh Nagar; that all the above witnesses may not be relied in view of the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged upon deliberations as an afterthought and it is highly improbable that the security guards of Mall may know the applicant by name; that the allegations that applicant had obtained huge money from the deceased is baseless; that Innova Car in question No.U.P. 87 H 7155 is not in the name of applicant rather it belongs to his family members; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 6.7.2018.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that though the case relates to a circumstantial evidence, but there is sufficient evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to show that the death of Vandana Maheswari a 36 years old lady, whose married life was not successful, was murdered by applicant and none other than applicant; that the statements of taxi driver and rickshaw pullers are quite natural, as the taxi driver had dropped her to the 12-22 tri-junction (Tiraha) from where she had boarded in Innova Car No.U.P. 87 H 7155 with applicant and alleges to have over heard the conversation between her and the applicant, as they were talking about firstly visiting G.I.P. Mall and thereafter for visiting Agra; that the rickshaw pullers Baljot Singh and Kamal Mishra used to ply their rickshaws in the same area and also used to carry the deceased off and on and they also heard their conversation; that security guards of G.I.P. Mall had no reason to tell a lie and their statements confirms their visiting at G.I.P. Mall and they have given their statements upon seeing their photographs; that apart from it, there are call details of the deceased on record and counter affidavit, which shows that there were talks for long duration between the deceased and applicant since 1.6.2018 to 16.6.2018 upto 19:19 hrs. i.e. 7:19 p.m.; that as per call details report filed at C.A.1 to the counter affidavit of first informant, there were four calls between deceased and applicant between 18:23 hrs. to 19:19 hrs.; that there is report about C.C.T.V. footage of G.I.P. Mall, which shows that deceased and applicant entered the G.I.P. Mall by Gate No.3 on 16.6.2018 at 19:47 hrs. i.e. 7:47 p.m. which confirms the evidence of last seen; that Investigating Officer has also collected the report of C.C.T.V. footage from Jewar Toll Tax Yamuna Express High Way on 16.6.2018, which shows that silver grey coloured Innova Car No.U.P. 87 H 7155 passed from at the Toll Tax and left from Noida towards Agra at 10:23.36 hrs. which fulfils the requirement of last seeing the deceased with the applicant after which her dead body was recovered; that the chain of circumstances is complete in view of call details and C.C.T.V. footage; that the applicant was distant brother-in-law of the deceased and they were previously known to each other and the applicant has taken huge money from the deceased; that in the circumstances it is wrong to say that applicant has been falsely implicated; that in order to avoid the re-payment of money taken by the applicant from deceased he has eliminated her.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Amit Paltani in case crime no.0382 of 2018, under sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC, P.S. N.O.I.D.A., Sector 58, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018/Tamang