Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36436 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajat Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R P Rajan,Prabha Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Sahay, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R P Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.
Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 227 of 2019, under Sections 302, 307, 34, 504, 506, 201, 216, 116, 120-B I.P.C. & 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi, applied for bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits in following manner :-
(i) Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fake.
(ii) Although the applicant is named in the FIR and it is a case of double murder but the applicant has no concern with the present case. Informant is not eye witness. He was not accompanied with the deceased person. Applicant is said to have opened fire on Krishna Kumar due to which he sustained serious firearm injuries and died. Witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR but during investigation in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., informant, first time, disclosed the name of witnesses.
(iii) According to FIR, deceased was taken to hospital by informant but as per medical record, he was taken to hospital by police constable. Maternal uncle of informant is resident of Mirzapur whereas incident took place in District Varanasi. Thus, presence of maternal uncle of informant is not natural. He is a chance witness.
(iv) There is material contradictions in statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Recovery of pistol at the pointing out of applicant shown by the police, is false and fabricated. Pistol was not sent to FSL and its report is still not received. Criminal history, as stated by prosecution is properly explained in paragraph 30 of bail application. Actual assailants of occurrence fled away from the spot and nobody has seen the incident. Having been inimical, informant lodged the FIR against the named accused.
(v) Applicant is in jail since 04.10.2019. There is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.
Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in FIR. There is a direct role of firing upon the deceased which is assigned to applicant. Pistol which is said to use in occurrence has been recovered at the pointing out of applicant from the house of co-accused. Informant, in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution case and disclosed the role of present applicant. It is a case of double murder. Applicant deserves no sympathy.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, role of the applicant in incident, recovery of pistol and postmortem report of deceased persons. I do not see any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus, bail application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 SA