Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5048 of 2017 Appellant :- Iqrar Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Samit Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The contention of Sri Samit Gopal on the first bail application filed on behalf of appellant Iqrar is to the effect that appellant has already suffered incarceration in jail since 27.12.2011 that he has got no previous criminal history. The present case is the case of circumstantial evidence. The contention is that the appellant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of statement made by the wife who was examined as prosecution witness, however she was not part from investigation and she was summoned by the court. Sri Samit Gopal submitted that as per statement made by the wife, the husband i.e. deceased while he was sitting at the shop of appellant, he has been informed to his wife that he was present here. Subsequently, wife has rang-up allegedly on the phone of the husband by her own phone and that phone was picked-up by the appellant and on the said basis the appellant has been implicated.
The contention of Samit Gopal is to the following effect:-
(A) that wife is never the part of investigation and for the first time she has examined in the court and she has given her statement.
(B) Pinki as well as the deceased wife was never examined.
(C) that there is no CDR details which may show that any such conversation have been placed between deceased wife and the appellant Withe regard to the recovery of the dead body of deceased it is mentioned that the recovery is made from the open field and recovery has not been proved in accordance with law. The further contention of counsel for the appellant is that the appeal is arguable. There in no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future and there is every likelihood of the appeal being allowed.
Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the bail application and contended that it is a rope which has been recovered from the house of co-accused.
However it has not been disputed that appellant has suffered incarceration 27.12.2011. Rope said to have been recovered has not been connected with the crime.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, let the appellant- Iqrar convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 127 of 2012, "State of U.P. vs. Iqrar", Case Crime No. 777 of 2011, under sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Highway, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Fine as imposed shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month from the date of his release. In case of default in depositing the fine within the aforesaid period, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 Swati