The Hon'ble Court rejected a bail application filed by Vijay Tomar, an accused in a murder case. The Court found the applicant's submissions regarding identification affidavits and recovery of weapons to be callous and not credible, refusing bail.
The bail application stands rejected; the accused remains in custody.
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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32279 of 2021
Applicant :- Vijay Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Kushwaha,Neeraj Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.1236 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Baraut, DistrictBaghpat is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by Smt. Shivani, wife of the deceased against the sole named accused/applicant who is the informant's real dewar and being charged for eliminating his own real brother Vishal Tomar. The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is on two folds :- (i) that the informant is not an eye witness and it is the injured husband who has revealed the name of the assailant who has given the gun shot injuries to him ; (ii) the time and occurrence is 6:15 in the morning in the month of December, 2019 and it is highly unlikely that in the absence of source of light, the informant would identify the accused/applicant ; (iii) After the incident, mother of the applicant has given an affidavit to the concerned Investigating Officer on 12.03.2020 in which she has candidly submitted that that on the date of incident, the informant was not at her place and went to her mayka and thus, there was no question of narrating the story in the manner in which the FIR was registered.
There are two real brothers and date and time of incident is 6:15 a.m. in the month of December, 2019. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused has unable to identify his own real brother and in the twilight stage. One can easily identify his real brother and assassinated him and on this account, no abnormality or illegality is surfaced. So far as the affidavit part is concerned, it is the mother of the applicant who has given this affidavit. Since, she is the mother of both of her sons and she has got no other option but to give an affidavit in favour of his remaining son and therefore, no credence could be attached. There is recovery of the weapon of 315 bore from the possession of the applicant from the sugarcane field and on his pointing out, the weapon was recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly drawn the attention of the Court to the site plan prepared by the I.O. of the case and contended that the way of exit is highly improbable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2019.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not ready to accept the contention as it could be callous and handy work of the concerned Investigating Officer.
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence in favour of the applicant.
Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 2.11.2021 Sumit S
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder offence under Section 302 IPC given doubts regarding identification and FIR credibility.
Vijay Tomar
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
