Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant/accused in Case Crime No.123 of 2016, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime and the co-accused Rajendra Yadav has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the role assigned to co-accused Rajendra Yadav and applicant/accused is similar. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2016. P.W.1 in her statement has stated that he has mentioned the name of the accused persons in the F.I.R. as told by the persons who were present at the spot. Hence this accused should be given benefit of parity and be enlarged on bail.
Contrary to it learned A.G.A. submitted that this accused along with other co-accused persons fired upon the deceased, it has specifically been mentioned in the F.I.R. and also in the statements of P.W.1 & P.W.2 made before the Court. Learned A.G.A. also submitted that this accused cannot be given parity because in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 made before the trial court, they have stated that accused Rajendra Yadav was wearing Helmet, so they could not recognize him. But the witnesses have identified this accused and other co-accused Rohit Gupta in the Court. As per postmortem report, the deceased was having nine fire arm injuries, which are on vital part of his body. So the bail application should be rejected.
Considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record.
According to the version of the F.I.R. on 26.06.2016 at about 2:00 p.m. the accused Rakesh Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Dablu Yadav fired upon the husband of the complainant and killed him. The complainant (wife of the deceased Pratibha Singh ) and her brother-in-law Man Singh witnessed the incident. P.W.1 wife of the deceased and P.W.2 brother of the deceased have identified this accused in the Court. It is a day light murder. This accused cannot claim parity of co-accused Rajendra Yadav because these two witnesses has stated in their statements before the trial court that he (Rajendra Yadav) was wearing helmet at the time of the incident and co-ordinate Bench while granting bail has observed this fact.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record without commenting on merit this Court does not deem fit to enlarge the accused/applicant on bail.
The application deserves to be rejected, accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 A.K. Singh