Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7682 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Awanish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2017 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Magorra, District Mathura.
As per F.I.R., the prosecution case is that on 5.8.2017 at about 1.30 a.m. in the night, the son of the complainant (first informant), Dharmendra Kumar was murdered by being stabbed several times. On the said information, the F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 7.15 a.m.
It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused applicant that accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; mother of the deceased has stated that when she had woken up on the cry of Dharmendra and had gone to see where the deceased was sleeping, she found that the present accused was standing there with some heavy weapon who ran away from there giving threat to kill her; she found the deceased in pool of blood lying there; the statement of the other witnesses also pointed out discrepancies and it is unusual that if a person causes injuries to the deceased, he would stay there to be identified by others; next it is argued that in F.I.R., there is averments that sharp edge weapon (knife) was used in commission of offence while in the post-mortem report as many as six injuries were found which are lacerated wounds or contusion which do not find support from the F.I.R. version; the weapon used in commission of offence (musli) is alleged to have been recovered from the accused but that was also not found blood stained; the accused has no criminal history; the accused applicant is in jail since 10.08.2017; if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail and states that accused has given confessional statement that he had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased.
Looking to the fact that the injuries found in post-mortem report do not corroborate with the version of the F.I.R. and that there are discrepancies in the version of eye-witness, quantum of the punishment, nature of the offence and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Mahesh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 A. Mandhani