Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21577 of 2021 Applicant :- Sultan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Sultan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 145 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although in the present case, there are two persons who have lost their lives who are Ram Niwas and Sufiyan but the role assigned to the applicant is only of conspiracy and there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that the present case appears to be a case of sudden quarrel and the applicant has been named therein. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant is not involved in any manner in the present case and his implication is false. It is argued that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence for which the links in the chain are missing. It is argued that the allegation that there were some dues of both the deceased persons at the liquor shop which they failed to clear which was the reason for fight is also without any evidence. It is argued while placing Annexure-4 to the affidavit that Vipin son of Balkaran the brother of one of the deceased Ram Niwas has in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given a different version as that stated in the first information report lodged by Balkaran. It is argued that as such looking to the statement of Vipin who was the person who had gone to the place of occurrence, the implication of the applicant is false and incorrect. It is further argued that the applicant has no concern with the liquor shop and is even not the licensee of the same. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 and is in jail since 26.02.2021.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that Vipin and Nanhe have witnessed the deceased persons and the accused persons indulging in scuffle. It is further argued that from perusal of postmortem report, it is apparent that Ram Niwas has sustained as many as 07 injuries on his person and the cause of death has been opined as Asphyxia due to strangulation whereas the other deceased Sufiyan has received as many as 08 injuries on his person and the cause of death has been opined as hemorrhage and shock due to antemortem sharp cut injuries and all the injuries received by him are incised wounds. It is argued that Vipin and Balkaran, the first informant have supported the prosecution case and it is the applicant and other accused who were last seen with the deceased persons and as such their involvement cannot be ruled out.
Learned A.G.A. has objected to the recital that the applicant has no criminal history as an incorrect recital as the applicant is said to have been involved in 09 criminal cases as per his instructions received. It is argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the first information report. The present case is a case of double murder and although the same is a case of circumstantial evidence without any eye-witness but the applicant and other co-accused persons were last seen with the deceased persons and subsequently they were not seen and their dead body were recovered on the next day which goes to show that there were less chances of interference of any other intervening circumstance as the doctor conducting postmortem examination has opined the time since death of about 1/2 to 1 day old of both the deceased persons which coincides with the time of occurrence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.05.28 16:12:30 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.5.2021 AS Rathore