Anit @ Tota Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6008 of 2020

Applicant :- Anit @ Tota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Anit @ Tota seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.104 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

For an incident which took place on 05.02.2019 at about 18.40 hours a first information report was lodged on 06.02.2019 at 23.55 hours by Amrendar Singh regarding the murder of Neeraj against two unknown persons.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against unknown persons. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant, the applicant is not named. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered a CCTV footage from a shop named Evergreen Sweets and on seeing the same and on identification by the police informer identified the applicant with two other persons committing the said incident. It is argued that the applicant has not been put through test identification so as to fix his identity which would further have corroborated his identity.

¶10

He further argued that the post mortem report shows two gunshot injuries but the prosecution case after going through CCTV footage comes out three persons involved in the shooting. In para-8 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the applicant was arrested in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 147,148,149,323,364,506 and 302 I.P.C. and on his pointing out 30 bore pistol and one live cartridge was recovered which was alleged to have been used in the said case and even in the present case. For the recovery of the said weapon a separate case has been registered being Case Crime No.225 of 2019, under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The applicant has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in both the cases. The same has been mentioned in paragraph-9 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further argued that co-accused Subodh Bhati has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35246 of 2019.

¶11

It is argued that the applicant is said to be involved in some other cases being eight in number which have been explained from paras 17 to 25 of the supplementary affidavit. The recovery as alleged is argued to be planted as the applicant has been acquitted of the charges in the case lodged after recovery of the said weapon. There is no direct or corroborative evidence against the applicant except for the C.C.T.V. footage, the recovery of the pistol and confessional statement of the applicant.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. argued that the applicant has been assigned main role of shooting in the order of co-accused who has been granted bail. There is a specific reference of the applicant being the main assailant in the present matter. The identity of the applicant gets fixed from the CCTV footage as

¶13

recovered and viewed by the Investigating Officer regarding which he has given description in the parcha dated 12.02.2019 of the case diary.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a case for bail.

¶15

The bail application of the applicant is accordingly rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.2.2020 Asha

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Anit @ Tota v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anit @ Tota v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Sen Vs State of U.P.

Balram Patel Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P.