1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. This bail application has been filed by the applicant who is an accused in Cr. No. 16/2015, U/S - 147/14/149/364/302/201 I.P.C., P.S. Badosarai, District - Barabanki.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that according to the first information report lodged by the father of the deceased, it has been stated that his son had certain dispute with the main accused and his wife with regard to certain money which was given to the main accused for securing a job. Even after taking the said money nor was any job given to him nor the money refunded.
3. It has further been stated that on the fateful day, the deceased had gone to meet main accused to take his money but never returned and mobile phone was switched off. His brother searched for him at residence of main accused but could not able to contact the main accused nor his wife, consequent to which the first information report was lodged on 20.01.2015. Subsequent to lodging the first information report the body of the deceased was recovered at Barabanki.
4. The statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the entire version of the first information report has been reiterated. The statement given by the brother of the deceased, Shivam Srivastava has also supported the prosecution and has further stated that he had himself seen a vehicle wherein his brother was being taken away by the main accused and other persons including the applicant.
5. It is stated that soon after the seeing the occupants of the said car that the deceased was done to death. The medical report which has been annexed to the bail application shows 11 injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death has been shown due to the shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.
6. It has further been stated that the statement of the last seen evidence which has come up in the brother of the deceased Shivam Srivasava has been supported by other witnesses, namely, Harshit Raj Srivasava, Naman Srivastava and Arpit Srivastava. All of these witnesses have stated that they had seen the deceased in company of the co-accused including the applicant. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the last seen evidence has been tendered by the relatives of the deceased and therefore they are not reliable.
7. He further submitted that the name of the applicant did not figure in the first information report and inquest whereby the brother of the deceased was present and therefore the entire evidence so collected become doubtful.
8. Learned A.G.A. on the other had opposed the bail application and submitted that looking into the evidence which has been collected during investigation specially the statements given by the brother of the deceased and the witnesses who had seen accompany of the other co-accused just prior to the said incident leads clearly to the implication of the applicant. Coupled with the fact that the nature and seriousness of the injuries are grave and no leniency in this regard can be given in favour of the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. From the material on record which has come up, there was a dispute between the deceased and the main accused with regard to the payment of certain money for securing the job.The job has not offered to him in pursuance to the said payment of the money nor did he return the money. The deceased was called by the main accused and subsequently all of them were seen on a Tata Safari car by the brother of the deceased and other relatives and the body of the deceased was subsequently recovered with 11 injuries which has been shown to have resulted in the death. There is no eye witness to the said incident but the case against the applicant is based solely on the circumstantial evidence. During investigation, in the recovery memo even the mud-guard of the said vehicle has been recovered from near the body. This fact has been disputed by the applicant who had submitted that under the interrogated period the investigation was handed over to the CB CID who had doubted the recovery of the said mud-guard of the vehicle.
11. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, gravity of offence, seriousness of the injuries and the evidences of the last seen which has come up on record supported by number of eye witnesses, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, the application for grant of bail is accordingly, rejected at this stage.
12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the chargesheet has been filed in the year 2019 and not much progress has been made during the trial and looking into the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail for nearly more than one and a half year, it is prayed for expediting the trial.
13. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said prayer made by learned counsel for applicant.
10. Accordingly, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Ravi/