Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 8.5.2007 an unknown dead body was found and the FIR was registered . On 9.5.2007, the dead body was identified to be that of deceased Devendra. After seven months on 7.1.2008, the second statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he mentioned that the applicant and the co-accused had taken the vehicle on hire, which the deceased used to drive and they must have caused his death. It is argued that no value could be assigned to the highly belated statement and the confessional statement given to the police by the co-accused which is inadmissible. No recovery or any other piece of evidence has been produced . He further argued that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are not sufficient to link the applicant with this crime. The applicant has no criminal history also.
Per contra, learned AGA argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Lotan @ Lokesh @ Lokan @ Tota involved in case crime No. 378 of 2007, under Section 302/201 I.P.C, P.S. Saiya, district Agra be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010 sfa/