The single-judge Criminal Bench allowed a bail application in a murder case, holding it to be a fit case for bail despite grave charges, considering the lack of eyewitness testimony and the period of custody.
The applicant let out on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the 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. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32894 of 2019
Applicant :- Vikas @ Vikki Rawat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 2377/2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, police station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR and that he was named by complainant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the complainant is not an eye witness of the incident. It was further submitted that neither any witness has stated anything against the applicant nor there is any evidence against him. It has further been argued that alleged recovery of knife shown at the instance of applicant, is false and baseless and was shown from the open place. It was further submitted that co-accused Gaurav Gautam has already been enlarged on bail by Sessions Court. It was also submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 16.12.2018 and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that weapon used in the incident has been recovered at the instance of the applicant and co-accused Rahul Pandit. However, it could
not be disputed that there is no eye witness of alleged incident nor any other such evidence like last seen has been indicated against the applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, facts of the case, nature of accusations, period of custody, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Vikas @ Vikki Rawat involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Anand
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving murder and attempt to murder given the lack of eyewitness evidence and post-arrest statements implicating him.
Whether the false implication and alleged non-availability of evidence against the applicant entitle him to bail pending trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikas @ Vikki Rawat
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
