In this bail application, the High Court rejected the prayer for enlargement on bail for an accused in a murder case, observing that the accused was seen with the deceased and the evidence appeared clinching and credible.
Bail application rejected.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28039 of 2021
Applicant :- Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Gautam , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 112 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is argued that the first information report has been lodged by chowkidar of the village against unknown person stating therein that on 10.05.2021 at about 9 AM, he saw crowd in Kashiram Awas where he went and found that the dead body of Manoj, the deceased was present. It had injury on head and face.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that subsequently the neighbour of the deceased Ram Belas and Sugreev Harijan, the servant of the deceased were interrogated who have stated that in the night they had seen the applicant in the house of the deceased. Ram Belas states that at about 12 in the night on 09.05.2021, he saw the applicant going away from the house of the deceased. Further Sugreev Harijan has stated that at about 7 PM on 09.05.2021, he has seen the deceased with the applicant and they were cooking meat after which he went of. Learned counsel has argued that subsequently the police has shown the recovery of an iron rod on the pointing out of the applicant on 15.05.2021 which is from an open place and without any public witness. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. As a matter of fact, the applicant did not visit the house of the deceased. Paragraph 17 of the affidavit has been placed. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 15.05.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was seen in the house of the deceased after which the deceased was found dead. It is argued that the case is of denial by the applicant of visiting the house of the deceased which is patently incorrect specifically looking to the statements of Ram Belas and Sugreev Harijan. It is argued that the applicant was last seen with the deceased after which the deceased was found dead. No explanation is coming from the side of the applicant as to when he parted ways with the deceased. It is further argued that time since death in postmortem examination also corroborates with the prosecution version.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is evidence of the applicant being in the company of the deceased before his death which is stated by Ram Belas and Sugreev Harijan. The applicant was seen going out from the house of the deceased which is stated by Ram Belas and also the fact that the applicant told him that the deceased is preparing meat. The servant of the deceased has stated that the applicant was present in the house and later on the dead body of the deceased was found. The same is clinching.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 2.12.2021 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during trial in a murder case.
Whether the evidence against the applicant is credible and sufficient for grant of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gautam
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
