Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6882 of 2018 Applicant :- Raju @ Bawali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jag Narayan,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 17.7.2013, some unknown person killed Dhaniram Yadav (father of complainant) by strangulation. During investigation, the name of applicant was surfaced.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present. Co- accused namely Arif @ Ashish @ Abhash has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, the name of applicant was surfaced. All witnesses of facts were examined before the court, they are not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 12.5.2014 (more than four years and nine months).
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant killed the deceased. There is criminal history of 37 cases against the applicant including the cases under Sections 302, 307, 394, 395, 396, 397 IPC. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the bail application of applicant Raju @ Bawali involved in Case Crime No. 459 of 2013, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj is hereby rejected at this stage.
It is directed to the court concerned to decide the case expeditiously according to Section 309 Cr.P.C.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019//Iss/