Court rejected bail application of Vineet accused of murder (IPC 302). Held that no bail case was made out despite claims of false implication due to gravity of offence and last seen evidence. Directed trial court to conclude trial expeditiously.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53875 of 2022
Applicant :- Vineet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Satya Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Vineet for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 346 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Nakhasa District Sambhal.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in present case. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person after a delay of two days, without there being any plausible explanation of such delay. He further submits that is no direct evidence against the applicant and the only allegation against the applicant is that of last seen. He also argued that as per post mortem examination, there is a crushed injury and it appears that the deceased was murdered by someone else and thrown away at the railway track. Learned counsel has also argued that there is no motive for the applicant to commit the alleged murder and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also
been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2022 having no criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Perusal of the record shows that there is evidence of last seen against the applicant to the effect that the applicant and the deceased were taking drink at railway track and the ante mortem injury also shows that there is a crushed injury. Apart from the aforesaid, the mobile location of the applicant was also found.
Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail has been made out.
Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Vineet is rejected.
However, the learned trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavours to conclude the trial of the the aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.4.2023 S.Ali
Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail in a crime involving sections 302 IPC.
Whether the last seen evidence is sufficient to deny bail at the pre-trial stage.
Vineet
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
