Heard Sri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Nitesh @ Chandraprakash, seeking enlargement on bail involved in Case Crime No. 656 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence in which the allegation against the applicant is that of taking away of the deceased Kamal Singh on 28.06.2018 at about 9:30 pm and since then he went missing. It is argued that subsequently the dead body was recovered on 30.06.2018 of which the inquest and postmortem was conducted on 01.07.2018 and later on, a first information report was lodged on 02.07.2018. It is argued that the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2018 and then on 01.08.2018 a rope is alleged to have been recovered on his pointing out which there was is said to have been used in the present incident. Learned counsel has argued that the present case a case of circumstantial evidence in which there are two evidences being the taking away of the deceased by the applicant from his house and the recovery of rope. There is no other evidence whatsoever to connect him with the present incident which is insufficient to implicate him. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.07.2018.
Learned counsel has further placed Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit and argued that trial in the present case has started being Sessions Trial No. 375 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Nitesh @ Chandraprakash) in which charges have been framed against the applicant on 27.11.2018 but the same is not proceeding and as such the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the chain of circumstances and the evidence corroborating the same are complete in as much as the applicant is the person taking away the deceased from his house whose dead body was recovered after two days and the doctor conducting the postmortem examination found a ligature mark on the dead body while opining the cause of death to be Asphyxia as a result of antimortem strangulation and the time since death has been opined to be 2-3 days which gets corroborated from the date and time of the applicant taking the deceased from his house. It is argued that there is a recovery of rope on the pointing out of the applicant which is also a circumstance against him. It is argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)