Jagdeep Kanojiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 363/2024, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 25.08.2024 stating that the informant's son had gone missing at about 05:00 p.m. on 04.06.2024. On 05.06.2024, it is recorded in the general diary that an information was received at Police Station Inayat Nagar at 19:28 hours that an unknown half burnt dead body, was found in a mutilated condition in Sita Chaura Shamsan Ghat.

¶11

Inquest proceedings were carried out on the same day and it is recorded therein that the injuries on the dead body could not be ascertained, flesh was missing from both hands, flesh and skin was missing from the chest and abdomen. There were burn marks on the legs. The dead body was wholly mutilated. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and it is recorded therein that the body was decomposing. The entire

¶12

body had superficial to deep burns with decomposing with bones exposed. Doctor has opined the cause of death to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries.

¶13

In furtherance of the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, statements of the informant and his family members were recorded on 02.09.2024. The informant reiterated the FIR version. One Rajit Ram, mama of the missing person, also reiterated the FIR version. Smt. Sushila, mami of the missing person, stated that the missing person used to work as a cleaner with Sumit Saran, truck driver. On 04.06.2024 a phone call was received on his phone number and he told that driver Sumit Saran had called him. Thereafter, it came to light that the dead body of her nephew Umesh was recovered from a jungle near village Sidhaura. It was also revealed that because of some affair with a girl, Sumit Saran had killed her nephew along with his accomplice Jagdish (the applicant) by setting him ablaze after pouring patrol over him. Shrimati wife of Ram Naresh, mother of the missing person Umesh, stated that Sumit Saran had called him by making a phone call. Thereafter dead body of her son was found in a jungle near the village. She had identified the dead body of her son.

¶14

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with the bail application. A copy of the charge sheet dated 09.12.2024 has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. Although a sample was sent for DNA examination, DNA examination report has not been annexed with the counter affidavit. Learned State Counsel informed that the DNA report is still awaited.

¶15

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has

¶16

been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material placed before the Court at this stage is that the informant's son had gone missing on 04.06.2024. The FIR was lodged on 25.08.2024. The burnt dead body was reported to be found on 05.06.2024 and the inquest report mentions that flesh of both the hands was missing and flesh and skin of chest and abdomen was missing, the dead body was wholly mutilated and injuries thereon could not be ascertained. The post mortem examination report also mentions that the dead body was mutilated and it was decomposing. However, the doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. When the body was in such a mutilated condition and flesh from hands, abdomen and chest had gone missing, there appears to be a reasonable apprehension that the cause of death could be ascertained by mere visual inspection in such a condition. The DNA examination report is still awaited so as to ascertain identity of the dead body. Strangely, the mother of the deceased has stated on 02.09.2024 that she had identified the dead body on 05.06.2024 and yet in the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, the only thing mentioned is that her son had gone missing.

¶18

Without making any further observation which may affect the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶19