Court No. - 20
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45780 of 2018 Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard SRi Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.467 of 2018 under sections 302, 201, 506 I.P.C. , Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that as per FIR the father of the informant is alleged to have gone away on 3.6.2018 and did not return home thereafter one Sanjai who is cousin of the informant has stated to have seen both the accused-applicant to have dragged the body of the deceased towards railway line. It is argued that when the said witness knew about the accused-applicant why he did not disclose their name to the informant that very night instead of informing on the next day on the basis of which FIR has been lodged. Further, it is argued that the inquest report was prepared at 7.00 A.M. on 4.6.2018 in which all the family members of the deceased were present then also the family members of the deceased did not point out the name of the accused-applicant and thereafter at 12.50 P.M. the FIR was lodged by the informant against the accused- applicant which showed that the FIR is anti-time. It is further pointed out that from both the accused spade (Fawra) is alleged to have been recovered from the tube-well of the accused-applicant while the injuries which have been found on the person of the deceased are five in number which are lacerated wound, which could not have been caused by the spade. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2018. He has no criminal history. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail stating that the occurrence took place on 3.6.2018 and report of the same was made immediately on the next day i.e. 4.6.2018 as soon as the informant came to know about the accused persons through witness Sanjay. It is further argued that during inquest nobody enquired about the names of the accused, hence same could not be mentioned in the inquest report. He further argued that the FIR was promptly lodged at 12.50 P.M. as soon as the informant came to know about the name of the accused. He also stated that the spade which was recovered at the pointing out of the accused applicant, its handle was found broken and there was blood stains on its handle and it could not be said that the injuries could not have been caused from its handle, hence bail application ought to be rejected.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case crime.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 AU