Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38737 of 2018 Applicant :- Aprajit Saraswat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohan Gupta
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of this application, the accused- applicant, Aprajit Saraswat, who is involved in Case Crime No.24 of 2018, under Sections-307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was got registered, after six hours of the occurrence when inquest proceeding and autopsy examination was got conducted whereas injured, Akash, was said to have taken the deceased to the Hallet Hospital, but he got himself examined at Community Health Centre, Kalyanpur not at Hallet Hospital; no report was got lodged for all this period whereas father of the deceased was witness of inquest proceeding and he has not lodged case at an earliest; statement is at variance; under Right To Information Act, an information has been given that father of the deceased has given information at Dial 100; he was not on the spot and he received information of this murder then he made information at Dial 100; accused-application has been falsely implicated in a case, which was committed by some one else and this false implication was there; there is no likelihood of accused-applicant of tampering with evidence or his fleeing from course of justice. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned private counsel for the informant is absent, though perusal of the ordersheet reveals that he was given opportunity and has filed counter affidavit, but inspite of second call, none is present for the informant.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that in case of giving fire arm shot, family members will prefer to be at Hospital first than to be at Police Station for getting a case registered, under panic and agony in such kind of broad day light murder by fire arm shot, the behavior of family members may not be presumed or expected to be otherwise because it depends personal perception and acumen of each person to person.
This report of bringing a dead body at Hallet Hospital, having gun shot wound, owing to death, was reported by the Ward Boy at the hospital and this was entered in General Diary entry. Inquest proceeding was conducted. There was conclusion that this was a case of murder by fire arm shot. Autopsy examination was needed, hence formalities for autopsy examination was got performed and it was conducted on the same day. Death was found to be owing to anti mortem fire arm shot injury over forehead, having blackening and tatooing, meaning thereby, close range fire arm shot over forehead was there. Father of the deceased participated in inquest proceeding, but admittedly, he was not present on the spot nor was having first information about this occurrence because it was Abhishek Tiwari and Akash, with whom deceased was there, within the area of Police Station Kalyanpur. At the time of occurrence, father of the deceased was present at a distant place where he heard information about the occurrence from where he went to Hallet Hospital where above inquest proceeding was conducted. He participated in it till then it was sure that it was a case of murder by fire arm shot by some one, but who did it was not known to the father of the deceased., it was informant, who got this case lodged, with specific mention of murder due to fire arm shot given by the present accused-applicant, upon exhortion made by his mother, father, brother and sister. Fire arm assault was also made to one other injured, Akash. The statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as of informant, injured, Akash and witness of occurrence are fully intact. Autopsy examination proved murder owing to ante mortem fire arm shot injury over forehead, blackening and tatooing around it, showing fire arm shot from close range. At this juncture of disposal of the bail application minute examination and appraisal of the facts, evidence and law is not to be done because it may prejudice a fair trial.
Under all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of murder, likelihood of tampering with evidence by the accused-applicant, in case of release on bail and fleeing from course of justice, no case of bail is there.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of parties.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 bgs/