Single judge court issued bail for applicants charged with murder, noting lack of direct evidence and implausible recovery. Applicant released on personal and surety bonds after satisfying court that they are a fit case for bail.
Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27117 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Dom @ Jhagaru And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged against unknown. The name of applicants came into light during investigation on the basis of confessional statements of applicants. It is said that the deceased developed illicit relation with the sister of applicants due to which the applicants have committed the murder of the deceased. In fact, there was no illicit relation in between the sister of applicants and deceased. There is no direct evidence against the applicants. The recovery of 18 damaged CCTV footage have been shown on the joint pointing out of applicants from an open place after 7 months of the alleged incident which is not probable and believable. False recovery has been planted against the applicants. The applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. There is no cogent evidence against the applicants to connect with the alleged offence. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence. The applicants have no criminal history and are in jail since 4.4.2019.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicants Raju Dom @ Jhagaru and Rajababu Dom involved in Case Crime No. 616 of 2018, under section 302, 201, 427, 436, 457, 411, 380 IPC, P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicants.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Masarrat
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail in a murder trial where defence submits lack of direct evidence and questionable recovery.
Whether sufficient cause exists to grant bail despite the pendency of investigation and trial.
Whether specific conditions should be imposed for the release of the bail applicant.
Ram Dom @ Jhagaru And Another
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
