Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J. rejected the bail application of the accused in a murder case, citing the heinous nature of the offence and likelihood of fleeing court or tampering with evidence based on proximity to the crime scene.
Bail application stands 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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6874 of 2021
Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by accused-applicant, Avnish Kumar Upadhyay, in Case Crime No. 161 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 404, 411 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonebhadra.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 14.07.2020; 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; applicant was of no motive to commit murder of deceased; no recovery of any weapon of offence for causing stabbed wound over the deceased was there, rather recovery of pipe and rope was there; close friendship in between was there; merely on the basis of suspicion, this implication was made; nor any independent witness is there; statement of Virendra Kumar is also not of eye witness account. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that instant report of this occurrence was got lodged on 14.07.2020 at 23.05 pm; informant's son deceased was taken by applicant at 8.00 pm on 14.07.2020; both of them were seen in company together near place of occurrence and instantly deceased was found under pool of blood, who was dead; this report was got lodged instantly and applicant is named in it; in autopsy examination, death was owing to stabbed wound; now in close proximity of time and close vicinity of place of occurrence, applicant was seen in company of deceased; now he was to explain especial fact under his knowledge as and when he left company of deceased, as has been expected under Section 106 of Evidence Act; he has confessed his offence of murder committed by him; there is disclosure of this fact and in response to above disclosure, there is recovery of pipe, said to have been used as a weapon; hence looking to offence of murder and heinousness of offence, there is every likelihood of
fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record, considering the situation that in close proximity of time as well as close vicinity of place of occurrence, deceased was seen in company of applicant by Virendra Kumar, who had said in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; deceased was taken from his shop by the applicant and he, in his statement, has confessed it; there is disclosure followed by recovery.
Looking to the heinousness of offence of rape, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, but without commenting on merits of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 9.12.2021 Dhirendra/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving murder charges where the applicant was seen with the deceased at the place of occurrence.
Avnish Kumar Upadhyay
State of U.P.
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
