An appeal against the rejection of bail in a double murder case was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, noting the appellant's confession, recovery of weapons at his pointing out, and lack of merit in the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed and the bail application of the appellant was reinstated in the rejection order.
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. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2868 of 2021
Appellant :- Abhishek Respondent :- State Of U.P And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Kalim,Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose) Counsel for Respondent :- Braj Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opp.party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant Abhishek against the order dated 18.6.2020 by which the 3rd bail application of the appellant has been rejected in S.S.T. No. 922 of 2016, Case crime no. 282 of 2016, under sections 420, 406, 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2) SC/ST Act, police station Purkaji District Muzaffar Nagar.
Appeal is admitted.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place on 2.5.2016 at 10.30 p.m. The named accused Sachin and Sandeep and the present accused Abhishek are said to have kidnapped Monti and his friend Mandeep from the house of the complainant. It is said that Sachin had taken Rs. 65000/- from Mukesh @ Monti, the son of complainant on the pretext of providing a job for him but he has neither provided job nor returned the money. In the night of 2.5.2016 at 10.30 p.m. Sachin along with present accused Abhishek took Monti and Mandeep with them since then whereabouts of both could not be known. The first information report is said to have been registered on 5.5.2016. The complainant is said to have supported the first information report, both in statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the court. The eye witness Jagtar Singh has not supported the prosecution case and the other witness Mindar has also moved an affidavit to this effect in lower court. There is no evidence against him. The dead body has also not been recovered on his pointing out. The police apprehended him and showed the joint recovery of weapons from him. His confessional statement is said to have been recorded that from the recovered pistols they had committed murder of Monti and Mandeep. There is no direct evidence against him. Only circumstantial evidence is there. The link of circumstantial evidence also cannot be said to be connected each other. The appellant is in jail since 6.5.2016
and there is no criminal history to his credit. The co-accused Amit and Deepak have already been released on bail.The coaccused Sachin died in jail, hence, prayer for bail is made.
Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that it is a double murder case. The present accused is named in the first information report in kidnapping of two boys. The bail application of co accused Sandeep has been rejected by the court on 5.2.2020 and other accused namely Sachin has died in jail. The bail application of Amit and Deepak has been allowed as they were not named in the first information report. Their names came into light during investigation. The dead body of Mandeep has been recovered at the pointing out of the present accused. In this regard, the statement of S.S.I. Vijay is also on record. The P.W.-1 Suresh has supported the prosecution case and P.W.-2 Randhir has also supported the prosecution version, hence, the bail application is prayed to be rejected.
After going though the record, it is clear that it is a double murder case wherein the present accused is named in the first information report and the complainant - the father of the deceased has very well stated in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the present accused and two other persons took away his son from the house on the pretext of returning money and since then whereabouts of his son Monti and his friend Mandeep are not known, later on, at the pointing out of the present accused the dead body of Mandeep was recovered and when the police apprehended the present accused along with other accused, the illegal weapons were recovered from them. The present accused acknowledged before the police that he used the pistol in murder of the Mandeep and Monti. So far as bail order of co accused Amit and Deepak is concerned, admittedly, both of them are not named in the first information report. Jagtar who is eye witness has not been produced in the court nor any affidavit of Mindar to this effect has been produced in the court.
Thus, the learned trial court has rightly passed the order dated 18.6.2020 by which the 3rd bail application of the appellant has been rejected in S.S.T. No. 922 of 2016, Case crime no. 282 of 2016, under sections 420, 406, 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2) SC/ST Act, police station Purkaji District Muzaffar Nagar.
The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2021 Gss
Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani Thakur Date: 2021.12.09 12:08:12 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant in a double murder case where he was named in the FIR and confessed to the crime.
Abhishek
State Of U.P
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
