Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18381 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Ashutosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mohit who is involved in Case Crime No. 200 of 2018, under sections 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by Sandeep son of deceased Vedram and Smt. Natho Devi against the applicant and two others. In first information report it has been mentioned that on 6.3.2018 the informant's father Vedram and mother Natho Devi reached at the village Chittaihra by Maruti Car and he and Sanjay were also went at the village Chittaihra on motor cycle. After cleaning the house the informant and Sanjay were going on motor cycle and his father and mother were going in Maruti Car at about 11.20 A.M. He heard the sound of firing and then he saw that the applicant and co-accused Vikram and Ankit were making fire upon his father and mother and when informant tried to save them they also fired upon him. It has further been submitted that during the trial the statement of informant Sandeep has been recorded as P.W. 1 before the trial court in which he has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. The above witness in his statement has stated that at the time of the alleged incident he was not with his father and mother and he was at Loni. On information he reached at his village. It has further been submitted that informant Sandeep is main witness and is son of the deceased who has not supported the prosecution version. In fact, there was property dispute in between the applicant and deceased. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. In the confessional statement of co-accused Vikram it has come that he has fired upon the deceased persons and a recovery of a pistol has also been shown from the possession of co-accused Vikram. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 9.3.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that this is a day light incident. In first information report it has been mentioned that there was enmity in between the applicant and deceased Vedram and one son of Vedram, namely Anuj was in jail. The deceased along with his family leave his village. At the time of the alleged incident he was residing in another village and on the day of the alleged incident deceased Vedram along with his wife Natho Devi and his son Sandeep had come at his native village. After cleaning his house they were returning the applicant and co-accused Vikram and Ankit fired upon the deceased Vedram and Natho Devi in Maruti Car. According to the postmortem report 8 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased Vedram out of which 3 injuries are gun shot entry wound and 3 are its exit wound and on the body of deceased Natho Devi 7 injuries have been found out of which 3 injuries are entry wound and three are its exit wound. The informant Saneep is eye witness of the alleged incident and Sanjay is also eye witness of the alleged incident. The statement of Sanjay has not been recorded before the trial court. This is double murder case. The applicant is named in the FIR. The prosecution evidence is going on, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Mohit is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 A.