Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16661 of 2021 Applicant :- Shrichandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant involved in Case Crime No.93 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, P.S.Charwa, District Kaushambi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in FIR, which was lodged against one Kallu Seth, Indrapal and Sachin but during investigation, the said named accused persons were exonerated and that applicant was falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel has referred the statement of alleged witness Sapna, who is daughter of deceased and she has stated that in the night she has seen that applicant and her mother were talking with each other and that another witness Shabnam, who is also daughter of deceased and applicant and she has stated that applicant used to visit her home and due to that reason a quarrel has taken place between her mother and father. Learned counsel has referred the statements of other witnesses, who have stated that on the night of incident, they have seen that applicant was going towards his house on cycle with high speed. It was further submitted that statement of said witnesses are not reliable and there is no credible evidence against applicant and that he has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2020 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant was having relationship with the wife of deceased and that on the night of incident, applicant and wife of deceased were seen talking with each other and in the morning, deceased was found murdered. As per post-mortem report, cause of death, has been shown asphyxia due to ante mortem smothering.
Perusal of record shows that during investigation, witness Sapna and Shabnam, who are daughters of first informant and deceased, have stated that applicant often used to visit their house and that their mother (co-accused Sunita) used to talk him on phone and say that she cannot live without applicant and all these acts were being opposed by deceased. Witness Sapna has also stated that on the night of incident, when she awoke in the mid of night to attend the call of nature, she has seen that her mother co-accused Sapna and her uncle (applicant) were talking with each other and later on her mother Sapna has awoken her and told that her father has been murdered by someone. There are statements of several independent witnesses, who have stated that applicant was having illicit relations with Sunita, who is wife of deceased. One witness Chhotkoo has also stated that on the night of incident, at about 1.30-2.00 AM, he has seen that applicant was coming out from the house of deceased and thereafter, co-accused Sunita has closed the door of her house. It may also stated that co-accused Sunita has lodged FIR against one Kallu Seth, Indrapal and Sachin but their involvement was found false and it was found that she has named them due to enmity and to save the actual culprit, who is applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and conduct of applicant, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Shrichandra is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Neeraj