Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28557 of 2021 Applicant :- Anant Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Ker Singh,Vineet Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Sri Raghuvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office on 11.08.2021 but the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.
Heard Sri Ram Ker Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the applicant Anant Rai seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 217 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 147, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Didarganj, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. It is argued that the present case is a circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the murder. The only evidence against the applicant is the statement of Sanjay Singh and Govind Singh, copies of which are annexed as annexure 4 to the affidavit who have stated that the deceased was seen with the applicant along with co-accused persons on 30.12.2020 at about 06:30 PM and later on his dead body was recovered on 31.12.2020 at 08:00 AM. It is argued that the applicant was seen with the deceased along with co-accused persons and later on the recovery of the dead body does not show the real possibility of the applicant along with co-accused that they have remained in the company of the deceased. It is argued that the case is of circumstantial evidence and the evidence against the applicant is only of last seen with the deceased coupled with the fact that there is no incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 05.01.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the evidence coming forward against the applicant is that he was last seen with the deceased. The postmortem examination was conducted on 31.12.2020 at 05:00 PM and the doctor conducting the same has opined the time since death to be about one day which would if taken in reverse will be approximately the same time when the applicant along with co- accused persons were seen with the deceased. It is argued that the applicant has not in any para in the bail application disclosed as to when he parted with the deceased and even the reason for false implication. It is argued that although the case is of circumstantial evidence but the sole evidence of last seen and time since death as noted in the postmortem report would go to show that there was no intervening person in whose company and with whom the deceased would have been gone. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, it is apparent that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant along with other co- accused persons were last seen with the deceased. The time since death as per the postmortem report showing the time at which the applicant and co-accused persons were said to have been last seen with the deceased. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)