Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3333 of 2014 Appellant :- Rinku Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kr. Giri Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Arvind Agrawal
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 289764 of 2014 This is a first bail application moved on behalf of the appellant in appeal seeking his release on bail who has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2013 (State Vs. Rinku) arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2012, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Nagla Singhi, District-Firozabad.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and circumstances are of not in conclusive nature and do not give rise the inference of guilt against the appellant.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been pointed out that the deceased was seen for the last time with the accused. There are ample incriminating evidences which are of conclusive nature and the dead body has been recovered at the instance of the accused himself. Apart from this the blood stained clothes of the appellant and weapon of offence hasiya have also been recovered from his own house. The blood on the articles has also been found to be of human origin. Submission is that all the circumstances read together give rise conclusively the inference of guilt against the appellant. The incriminating circumstances have remained unexplained completely. It was also emphasized that there was a strong motive to commit the crime as the deceased is said to have had liaison with the wife of the appellant. Ordinarily this Court tends to lean liberally in favour of the accused in matters of prolonged detention but the period of detention alone cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula in all cases regardless to the nature of crime, the gravity of offence, the pertaining circumstances and many other relevant factors. Moreover, the Court has infact offered to hear the appeal finally but the counsel at this stage appears to be reluctant to do so. The detention period alone in matters of such gravity cannot suffice to be a legitimate basis to release the appellant on bail on that ground alone especially in the background of the fact that this Court is having all inclination to decide the appeal finally and it is not a case where it may be said that there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard.
At any rate looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of appellant Rinku is rejected.
It may be clarified that the observation, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the best application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Order on Appeal) Office is required to prepare the paper-book and list this appeal thereafter for final hearing in regular course.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Mini