Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52850 of 2019 Applicant :- Santosh @ Santu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Pandey, the learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 95 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Barhan, District- Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The prayer for bail is pressed on the submission that there were no eye witnesses to the commission of the crime as is evident from the recitals appearing in the First Information Report itself. Stress is also laid on the fact that immediately upon information being given by one Akhilesh, all the family members arrived at the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased was taken for treatment. According to learned counsel, even at this stage there is no mention of any other individual having apprised the family members of having seen the applicant having committed the act. Reference is also made in this respect to the statement of Smt. Guddi Devi to contend that due to enmity pressure was being mounted to wrongfully implicate the applicant in the commission of the crime. It was also submitted that despite sufficient time being available the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, the Court principally takes into consideration the statement of Raju, Ram Vraksh and Premi, three independent witnesses who have unequivocally stated that Hari Singh (the deceased) while still alive unequivocally stated that he had been shot by the applicant. The evidence as brought forth by the three independent witnesses is not dislodged. The Court also takes into consideration the statement of Preeti, the wife of the deceased who has also stated that while being taken for treatment, a video had been made in which the deceased is stated to have said that it was the applicant who had shot him. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments taken in paragraph -26 to submit that although a charge sheet has been submitted no video clip or recording allegedly made on a mobile phone has been made part of the record. That does not detract from the view that this Court takes that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at least at this stage since it is always open to the prosecution to lead further evidence. There is also no material to doubt the credibility of the three independent witnesses. Presently and on overall examination of the overall facts at this stage, the Court finds no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the Bail Application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)