Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7336 of 2018 Applicant :- Deepak Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhruv Sen Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in S.T. No.96 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.404 of 2016 under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 24.5.2016 at 9.30 p.m. the accused had abused the husband of the first informant. There was a dispute between her husband and the accused. The accused had hit her husband with 'kodal' which resulted in serious injuries being caused at his head. He was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is delay in lodging FIR which has been tried to be explained by saying that first she had tried to take the deceased to hospital and thereafter lodged the FIR, which is unbelievable. There is no crime number mentioned in the inquest report which also shows that the FIR was not written till then. So called witness (daughter of the deceased) has very simple injury which could be self inflicted to show that she was an eye witness of the occurrence. There is no corroboration of the FIR and eye witness account by the postmortem report. There is only one injury in postmortem while in FIR it is alleged that he was beaten badly. The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 26.5.2016. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
In rebuttal, learned A.G.A. has argued that the occurrence is of 9.30 p.m. of the house of the first informant. It is admitted that both the sides had dispute of land between them. The injured eye witness daughter as well as the first informant i.e. wife of the deceased have supported the prosecution version that the deceased was hit by 'Bans ka Fatta' by which he received injury i.e one lacerated wound. The recovery of the said weapon of the attack has been made at the instance of the accused which had blood stains also on it. The accused was involved in the commission of offence on the basis of above-mentioned facts. The bail is strongly opposed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
In view of the above argument and looking to the fact that there is an eye witness account, which may not be discarded at this stage and further looking to the serious nature of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not found to be a fit case for bail.
Bail application is accordingly rejected.
The court below is directed to expedite the trial in this case and if possible, decide it within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 AU