Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13572 of 2019 Applicant :- Munna And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.K. Maurya (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Babloo, Munna, Deepak and Gaya Prasad alleging that on 15.12.2014 Jeetu, son of the complainant, was killed by setting on fire after consuming wine. On the same day, statement of deceased was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he stated against Babloo, Munna and Deepak alleging that after consuming wine they set on fire.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and are languishing in jail since 21.1.2019 (about seven months) having no criminal history. The statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. is false statement. Deceased was not in a position to give the statement. He was admitted in the hospital and died. He further submitted that deceased was admitted at C.H.C.,Kadaura, District Jalaun thereafter he was admitted in District Hospital, Hamirpur. Hence it is impossible for the I.O. to record the statement of deceased in C.H.C., Kadaura. It is doubtful. In case they are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the I.O. will be treated under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Deceased stated against both the applicants. At this stage, they are not entitled for bail because deceased was died after receiving burn injuries caused by both the applicants as stated above. He further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against four persons but against one person, namely, Gaya Prasad nothing was stated by the deceased in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it appears that statement was given by the deceased otherwise I.O. had an option to include the name of Gaya Prasad in his statement also but he could not include his name to try the case. Therefore, bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, gravity of offence, without entering into the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected at this stage in Criminal Case No. 977 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 2119 of 2014, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun.
It is expected from the trial court to decide the case of the applicant expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to day basis, if there is no legal impediment.
D.M. & S.P./S.S.P,- Jalaun are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses summoned before the court below.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to D.M. & S.P./S.S.P,-Jalaun as well as to the court concerned within three days for compliance.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 OP