The court rejected a bail application in a murder case involving brutal throat cutting. The judge found no ground for bail due to the heinousness of the offence, severity of punishment, prima facie case, and reasonable apprehension of tampering, without commenting on trial merits.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4328 of 2020
Applicant :- Pradeep @ Kaley Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Pradeep @ Kaley, in Case Crime No. 96 of 2019, under Sections- 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kakrauli, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number because of being a labourer of the firm of Mintu Gujar and is languishing in jail since 27.4.2019; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; report was got lodged against unknown assailants; murder was at tubewell at night, nobody was witness of the occurrence; investigation proceeded, subsequently, story of motive was developed but this was subsequently, changed with another motive; there is no connecting evidence except an extra judicial confession followed by alleged recovery of weapon of occurrence but the time of such recovery is not there in the recovery memo nor there is any independent witness of this recovery nor such recovery was there; one co-accused Subhash has been enlarged on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that it was an occurrence based on circumstantial evidence; the death of deceased was owing to antemortem injury of cut of throat by sharp edged weapon, in the night of 22/23.4.2019 and this report was instantly got lodged on 23.4.2019 at 10:56 A.M., against unknown assailants i.e. no ground for false implication was there; subsequently, investigation proceeded, in between, extra judicial confession was made by applicant, there was disclosure of fact and in sequence of this disclosure of fact, under Section 27 of Evidence Act, there is recovery of blood stained cloths of accused applicant upon his pointing as well as weapon of offence i.e. spade, having blood stain over it; the
motorcycle was recovered from the sugarcane field; hence, the timing of this recovery, being said not to be written in the recovery memo, is not of that much fatal to this recovery because in case diary, time has been written to be at 3:00 P.M. of 26.4.2019 and it is at page No. 28 of the paper book; the recovery memo itself reveals the sequence and continuance of investigation, so the above argument is of not much avail; there are two independent witness of this recovery memo.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of a brutal murder by cutting the throat, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, no ground for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Kamarjahan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any grounds for bail are made out in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession.
Whether the discrepancy regarding the time of recovery in the memo affects the admissibility of evidence.
Pradeep @ Kaley
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
