Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38465 of 2018 Applicant :- Dilip Madheshiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Dilip Madheshiya in connection with Case Crime No. 35 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Jataha Bazar, District Kushinagar.
Heard Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA alongwith Sri Abhinav Upadhyay appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion against the applicant as the applicant and the deceased were involved in a relationship that was not to the liking of the deceased's parents. It is submitted that the circumstances appearing against the applicant are that there is a call detail record, secured by the I.O., annexure 7 to the affidavit, that shows conversation between the deceased and the applicant, and, that according to the mother of the deceased, Meena Devi on 27/28.12.2017 in the morning at 4.00 a.m. when she was proceeding to answer the call of nature, she saw near the bridge by the canal, the applicant alongwith Deepak Gupta going on a motorcycle towards the canal and they had a bag placed between them, regarding which she made an inquiry of, to which the answer was that they were carrying some manure in the bag. It is claimed that it was the dead body of the victim. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid circumstances hardly connect the applicant to claimed murder of the deceased. There is no incriminating recovery from the applicant or at his pointing. There is not even the evidence of last seen against the applicant. His implication is based on pure conjecture and to spite the applicant as the parents of the deceased were against the applicant and the deceased being into a relationship. It is submitted that the more likely possibility is that the deceased became a victim of a honour killing, at the hands of a family who disapproved the relationship between the two. Learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized that he cannot be kept under detention pending trial on the basis of mere suspicion, as in the present case there is no evidence against him except the statements of the father and mother of the deceased that are no more than expressions of suspicions. The call detail records are no evidence about the applicant murdering the deceased, since the two were admittedly into a relationship. There is no such call detail record where the location of the two mobile phone numbers might have last detected together.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that CDR details and the statements of the victim's mother clearly makes out a case against the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence where there is hardly any incriminating circumstance appearing against the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Dilip Madheshiya involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Jataha Bazar, District Kushinagar be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 BKM/-,Deepak