Munendra alias Munna Lal Sharma vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Munendra alias Munnalal Sharma with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 375 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 404, I.P.C. P.S. Civil lines, district Budaun.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Dharmveer Singh on 27.5.2005 at 5.00 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 26.5.2005 at about 11.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 7 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Suraj Pal Yadav alleging therein that the deceased Santosh Singh was returning from the R.T.O. Office in the evening of 26.5.2005, he met with two drunkers near the mill factory who demanded the money from the deceased for liquor for which they were quarrelling with him but the deceased had refused to give any money, then they caused injury on his person by using danda blows. Thereafter, he was taken in the sugarcane field where he was murdered by way of throttling. The alleged incident was witnessed by Rajendra, Kunwar Pal Singh and Suresh Pal. They gave information to the first informant, then he went there and saw dead body of the deceased lying in the sugarcane field.

According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 18 injuries in which injury No. 1 was ligature mark all around the neck and remaining injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

Heard Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, learned Counsel for the applicant ; learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night and the F.I.R. of this case is delayed. In the present case, the identity of the applicant is highly doubtful. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the alleged occurrence has been committed by the two drunkers, their names have been disclosed in the F.I.R. itself. The first informant is not eye-witness, the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel, it was not pre-intended. The alleged occurrence had taken place inside the sugarcane field and there was no possibility to witness the alleged occurrence by the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent, he is innocent. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the co-accused who are named in the F.I.R. have committed the alleged offence, they caused injuries on the person of the deceased by using danda blows, thereafter, he was taken into the sugarcane field, where he was murdered by way of strangulation. There is direct eye-witness account against the applicant. The deceased had received 18 injuries and there was no reason of the false implication of the applicant and there was nothing to show that the F.I.R. was ante timed and it is not a case of mistaken identity. The applicant is a man of bad character. In case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the fact, circumstance of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the active role of the applicant and causing of 17 injuries on the person of the deceased by using danda blows thereafter committing the murder of the deceased by way of strangulation inside the sugarcane field, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly the application is rejected.