Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23480 of 2019 Applicant :- Hariom Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Jitendra Singh,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Pandey
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application, moved by the accused- applicant- Hariom Singh, in Case Crime No. 581 of 2018, under Sections-302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station-Kanth, District-Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 13.10.2018; he is of no criminal antecedent; deceased was reported to be missing since 15 days by his wife; subsequently, this missing report was registered as an offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 364 I.P.C.; then after, on the basis of suspicion, implication of applicant was made in the tune that he used to take liquor in company of the deceased and on the basis of alleged confessional statement the applicant had been made accused of this offence; the alleged recovery is planted one; cause of death could not be ascertained; the DNA report is not there; the recovery of dead body is from a compound which is of no opening and that is house of brother of the deceased having no access; the alleged call detail is being admitted because the applicant is resident of same village of the deceased and since the deceased was missing then he was under telephonic communication with the wife of the deceased as was usually with deceased itself; the same is of no incriminating effect; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case, he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record it is apparent that it was a case based on circumstantial evidence and the motive is very well there because the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as of applicant's wife is there, where in, she has admitted that the applicant was under illicit relationship with the wife of deceased, who is now co- accused with him and the other motive was that the deceased had eliminated his property and intending to sale his remaining property for which his wife conspired and did commit this offence; other chain is of recovery of dead body upon pointing out of applicant and wife of the deceased; it was got recovered by way of exhuming from the courtyard of house of Narveer hence the very knowledge, of lying of this dead body, beneath the land, was to the applicant and co-accused wife of deceased and it was recovered so; same fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case, heinousness of offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, but without commenting on merit of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Deepak/