Shivkant v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15876 of 2022

Applicant :- Shivkant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Singh

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., P.S. Usrahar, District Etawah, during pendency of the trial.

The brief fact of the case is that according to the First Information Report, the incident took place on 09.11.2021 at an unknown time and the First Information Report was registered on the next day on 10.11.2021 at 01.00p.m. against the applicant and one unknown person. There is no explanation given by the first informant about the delay in lodging the First Information Report. It is further relevant to mention here that prior to the present First Information Report, no missing report was got registered by the first informant that the the deceased Gaurav had been missing. According to the prosecution case, the son of the first informant namely Gaurav aged about 19 years was a mechanic and on the occasion of Diwali, he came to his house on 09.11.2021 at 05.00 P.M., the applicant along with his one relative came to his house and asked his son to go along with them on a motorcycle to Umrain and thereafter an information was received to the informant that the dead body of his son was found in a drench but who was real culprit is yet to be ascertained in trial. He further submits that inquest of the deceased was conducted by the police on the same very day i.e. on 10.11.2021 and from a bare perusal of the inquest report, there is no injury found on any parts of the body of the deceased, only blood was oozing out from the mouth and nose. As per the postmortem report only one external injury was found on the right temporal region and the cause of death is due to antemortem head injury. He further submits that the only evidence against the applicant is of last seen and apart from that there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant to connect him with the alleged incident. He further submits that