Omveer vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Omveer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No 351 of 2007 under sections 302 I.P.C. P.S. Shahpur district Muzaffarnagar.

That fact in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Kirpal Singh on 31.7.2007 at 9.20 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31.7.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. The applicant is named in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the applicant has committed murder of the deceased by way of throttling. According to the postmortem examination report the cause of death was due to throttling. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, the same was rejected on 11.10.2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 11.10.2007 the present bail application has been moved by the applicant.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, assisted by Sri H.P. Singh 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 applicant is innocent, name of the applicant was not disclosed in the inquest report in the site plan also, the place of incident has not been mentioned. It was not possible for the applicant to commit the murder of the deceased by way of throttling in the presence of five persons who was also present in a room where the alleged offence has taken place. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The first informant himself has committed the murder of the deceased and lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant. The real mother of the deceased has filed an affidavit on 24.9.2007 mentioning therein that she has not seen the alleged incident. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case F.I.R. has been promptly lodged the applicant is the sole accused who committed the murder of the deceased by way of throttling, there was a dispute regarding the land and the deceased was a disabled person. The prosecution story is fully supported by the postmortem examination report. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. 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 this application is rejected.