Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37304 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Sewak @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Ram Sewak @ Pappu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that in the incident, the wife of the informant sustained fire arm injury and died. It has further been submitted that the accused-applicant has been in jail from the last more than one year and after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against the applicant. It has been submitted that the first information report shows that the injury which was sustained by the deceased was caused by co-accused Vinod Kumar, whereas in the Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witnesses have changed their stand and have stated that the injury which was sustained by the deceased was caused by the accused-applicant. It has also been submitted that the incident is of night and there was no source of light. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in jail since 26.10.2019, hence, he is entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He has further submitted that the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have constantly stated that the accused-applicant has caused the fire arm injury to the deceased and she died. The postmortem report also corroborate this fact that the deceased has sustained fire arm injury. It has also been submitted that the fire arm was recovered on the pointing out of the accused-applicant, hence, the accused- applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the arguments advanced from both the sides as well as the heinousness of the offence and the fact that the accused-applicant has been assigned the role of causing fire arm injury which resulted in the death of the deceased and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and magnitude of the offence, at this stage, I do not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The accused is given liberty to give another bail application after examination of the remaining witnesses and in that case the second bail application shall be decided on merits without being influenced by this order.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 sailesh