The applicant sought bail in a case involving murder and dacoity, alleging false implication. Rejecting the argument that co-accused granted bail entitled the applicant to similar relief, the court denied the prayer, citing the gravity of the offences and the existence of incriminating evidence.
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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19918 of 2021
Applicant :- Yogendra @ China Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girraj Singh 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. 408 of 2019, under Sections 395, 394, 302, 201, 120B, 411,34 IPC and Section 15 of the Dacoity Affected Area, P.S. Khandauli, District Agra, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The applicant is not named in FIR, which was lodged by the informant against unknown persons alleging that while his son was taking goods in his truck, near Bahrampur his son was murdered and truck was looted. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated during investigation and that involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of co-accused. There is no public or independent witness of alleged recovery and that whole prosecution story is concocted and fabricated. It has also been submitted that coaccused Jalvir Singh, Bhura @ Vikas Parihar and Satya Bhan have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copies of which are available on record. The criminal history shown against the applicant has duly been explained. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 07.11.2019 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that during investigation, applicant and co-accused Manoj were apprehended by the police and at their instance various articles/goods, robbed in the incident, have been recovered. It was also submitted that the name of co-accused persons, namely, Satya Bhan, Bhura and Jalvir Singh have been surfaced in the statements of co-accused Manoj and applicant and thereafter some recoveries were made from them and that the case of applicant is distinguished form the above stated coaccused persons, who have been granted bail. It was also submitted that criminal history of three cases has been shown against the applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Yogendra @ China is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 23.11.2021 A. Tripathi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in a case involving charges of murder, dacoity, and armed robbery.
Yogendra @ China
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
