Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42090 of 2018 Applicant :- Om Prakash Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Om Prakash Rai who is involved in Case Crime No.331 of 2013, under section 302, 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Suhwal, District Ghazipur. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2015.
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 applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The P.W.- 6 Preeti Rai daughter of the informant Sita Devi in her cross examination has stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence, Girdhar Rai was also present there. Girdhar Rai, the P.W.-2, in his statement has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he found the deceased dead. In the statement of P.W.-1 Sita Devi it has come that the deceased had taken meal at about 7.00 p.m. and thereafter, he went to Dera. In the post mortem report, semi digested food has been found in the stomach of the deceased which shows that the deceased has sustained injury in some other manner. The P.W.-1 Sita Devi is not the eye witness of the alleged incident. She has falsely shown herself to be the eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. False recovery has been planted against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 30.9.2013.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in this case statements of six witnesses including the witnesses of fact have been recorded. The applicant is the main accused. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the applicant shot fire upon the deceased due to which he died on the spot. Sita Devi is the eye witness of the alleged incident who has supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded before the trial court. The other witnesses of fact have also supported the prosecution version. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Gss