Pushpendra v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1632 of 2019 Applicant :- Pushpendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Kumari Meena, learned A. G. A. for the State.

This second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.283 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, IPC, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence against the applicant apart from the evidence of last seen and that too on the basis of statement of Vijaypal, which was recorded after two months of the alleged incident. No recovery was made from the possession of the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant is not a family members of Yashpal, the husband of deceased. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2018 with no previous criminal history.

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2018, with no previous criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.