Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4769 of 2021 Applicant :- Chotey Yadav @ Manish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi,Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Chotey Yadav @ Manish Yadav, in Case Crime No.
202 of 2020, under Section- 302 I.P.C. & Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Salempur, District- Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, wherein, first information report was got lodged on 2.11.2020 at 10:05 hours, for an occurrence said to be of 21:00 hours, on 1.11.2021 by Jagesar Chauhan, against four named accused persons, but they were subsequently set free and the statement of informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was of this fact that the name of previous accused persons were falsely got written on the basis of suspicion, whereas, the present applicant has been implicated in it; the inquest proceeding was conducted, wherein, Ram Naval was witness and at no point of time, he said the contention made by him, in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. i.e. an occurrence of close proximity of time, this subsequent version is a planted one; call detail report of cellphone of deceased reveals his conversation till about 9:00 P.M., with a girl, who is witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the SMS conversation has been filed on record, by way of an supplementary affidavit, reveals the affairs in between and it seems to be an honour killing; even after death, said to be at about 9:00 P.M., the incoming and outgoing call from that cellphone is there till the morning and this girl was having SMS conversation with applicant till the late night hours; the implication of applicant is with ulterior motive; the alleged recovery of pistol is a planted recovery and it is improbable; the blood stained T- shirt, which was written on serial No.1, was said to be with human blood but in its classification finding it was of 'no classification' whereas, this report itself is fabricated, once it was a human blood then classification ought to be diagnosed but was not diagnosed; the other two witnesses one of last seen of fleeing from the spot under suspicious circumstances and the other is of extra judicial confession are fabricated; applicant is languishing in jail since 4.11.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that the first information report was instantly got lodged and four suspected persons were made accused, it itself shows the bonafide of the informant, otherwise, applicant would have been there as named accused. But there was a dispute with regard to landed property of abadi, hence, suspected to be murder committed by those four neighbours but instantly statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and this was denied. Since, the beginning, it was written in FIR that call detail may disclose and it was suspected to be a murder by those four named accused persons i.e. accusation was not there against the applicant rather a suspicion against those four named accused person was there and subsequently it was narrated by that girl, whom, in close proximity of time, deceased has communicated that he was in company of present applicant; the present applicant had made extra judicial confession before a person, who was not related with informant and there is a recovery of pistol from the applicant; the other witness is of last seen witness who seen applicant fleeing from the spot, under suspicious circumstances and close proximity of time and the other witness has narrated that in close proximity of time, there is altercation in between deceased and the present applicant and there was a threat of dier consequences extended by the applicant. The transaction of money, that too a bank account transaction, is undisputed fact. Deceased had given money in the account of applicant, his relatives were also persuaded to have paid money and they were demanding it back, for which deceased was under stress and was demanding his money back from the applicant. Applicant has himself confessed this fact that he was under debt of money by deceased. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and each link of chain is there. This is further corroborated by cogent evidence as well as presence of human blood over the T-shirt of applicant and no explanation by applicant is given as to how human blood came over his T-shirt. There is every likelihood of applicant's fleeing from the course of justice or tampering with evidence, in case of release on bail. Hence, bail be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone thorough the material placed on record as well as considering the heinousness of offence of murder, likelihood of tampering of evidence or fleeing from course of justice, in case of release on bail but without commenting on the merit of case, there is no ground for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Kamarjahan