Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10440 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajeshwar Kannaujiya @ Batesar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushma Yadav,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Shri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. Although applicant is named in the F.I.R. yet none has seen the present incident and due to that reason there are contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Informant claimed himself to be an eye account witness and he has named three persons in the F.I.R. but when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, he has stated the name of co-accused were disclosed in the F.I.R. due to advise of other person. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the second statement of the informant and other prosecution witnesses and further argued that all the witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer made different story. In-fact, incident occurred in other manner and due to that reason body was lying at the place of occurrence till the morning. None tried to save the life of the deceased just after incident. It is further submitted that all the witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer were procured after incident. Medical evidence does not support the oral version. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant also referred the shape and size of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and nature of weapon assigned to the present applicant and further submitted that medical evidence is fully contrary to the oral version. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 17.04.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there was motive to commit the present offence against the applicant as is clear from the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer. Medical evidence clearly support the oral version.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., role assigned to the present applicant and the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. The bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021//Sanjeet