Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8051 of 2018 Applicant :- Suneel @ Afsar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 263 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120B IPC, P.S. Derapur, District Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is borne out from the FIR was got registered by Rambabu Yadav against his own son (the applicant) for murdering his another son Raju @ Anil (the deceased), the motive shown in the FIR and despite of the fact that the ancestral property was partitioned between the brothers, the present applicant Sunil alias Afsar being an ambitious person and wants to grab the entire property of his father and become owner of the entire property. He along with six other co-accused person (all are applicant's in- laws and wife) assaulted upon the deceased and killed by savar (a pointed weapon), which was recovered from his place of residence. The post mortem report reveals that there are as many as seven injuries over his person which includes incised as well as lacerated wounds. There is perfect motive to commit the offence with the aid of her in laws to wipe off his own brother.
Learned counsel for the applicant drawn may attention to the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of mother and also challenged the mode of recovery of the weapon. The mother has given different vesion of the incident and recovery of the sarvar (weapon of assault) after much delay.
Per contra learned AGA has submitted that the ladies in the village often resides in the inner most part of the house. She might not be aware of true facts due to various other reasons. So far as the recovery part is concern, the same is recovered inside the dwelling unit of applicant at his pointing out and as such recovery of the wepon cannot be disputed at this stage. Their is strong motive for the applicant. There could not be any good reason to falsely implicate the applicant by none other then his own father.
It is further submitted by learned AGA that since the trial of the applicant has already commenced and several witnesses of fact are yet to be examined and in case the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage of the trial by this Court after recording a prima facie finding in his favour the same may irretrievably prejudice the prosecution case at the trial and hence the applicant's prayer for bail at this belated stage is liable to be rejected.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage of trial, accordingly the bail application is rejected. However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant by 31.12.2018 without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In case the trial of the applicant is not concluded within the period stipulated hereinabove the applicant may move fresh application before this Court.
Subject to aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order may be transmitted to concern trial court for the compliance of the direction within 15 days.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Abhishek Sri.