Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7347 of 2018 Applicant :- Basantlal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2017 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hussenganj, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that the deceased was seen by the first informant being dragged in a field of paddy by the accused-applicant, when he had gone in search of him as he did not return late in the night till 11.30 pm. The first informant tried to catch hold of the accused-applicant but he escaped, he found that Dilshad was lying dead and there were injuries of sharp edge weapon on his person.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the two eye- witnesses, named in the FIR namely, Hakim and Zibreel had not put their signature on the Panchayatnama, which suggests that they were not eye-witnesses of this occurrence. Their statement has been recorded one month after the occurrence. The injuries shown in the post post-mortem report, do not corroborate the version of the FIR that the deceased was being dragged by the accused-applicant. In fact the deceased was of criminal nature, who might have been killed somewhere else by some unknown persons and the present accused has been falsely implicated. There is no explanation of delay in FIR. The post-mortem report also does not corroborate the time of occurrence because it contains that the death might have taken place one day before.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sri Md. Monis had argued that the recovery of knife which was used in commission of the offence, had been recovered at the instance of the present accused-applicant, who had made confessional statement before police. The two eye-witnesses apart from complainant had also corroborated the version of the FIR, hence, bail ought to be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
In view of above arguments of both the sides, this court is of the view that there is eye witnesses account in this case, which may not be discarded at this stage. The case for granting bail is not found to be made out. It is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 A.P. Pandey