Raj Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P.

J.C. Mishra, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed be placed on record.

This is second application for bail. The first bail application was rejected on merits. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant had no motive to commit the crime as in view of the adoption deed executed by the deceased the property would have been inherited by the adopted son of the deceased. The applicant had obtained sufficient property by Will executed by the collaterals. The informant is an inimical witness and he had motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case is unnatural and no reason has been assigned why Raj Bahadur was not assaulted if he was present at the scene of occurrence of offence. The prosecution case is falsified by medical evidence. On postmortem examination the stomach was found to be empty. The informant had stated that the deceased had taken samosa and tea in the market.

The learned Counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution case is falsified by medical evidence.

The informant has stated in the Court that his grandfather had remained in the market for about 34 hours and he had taken tea and samosa. After taking tea and samosa they lea the market at about 4.00 p.m. The incident took place at about 5.30p.m.

The learned AGA contended that the deceased could have taken samosa and tea as soon as he reached the market, and therefore, by the time the incident took place he had 41/2 51/2 hours which is sufficient to digest the samosa taken by him. He contended that the statement of the witnesses should not be taken with precision and accuracy and allowance may be given in the matter of time and duration.

The learned AGA contended that the pleas which were available at the time of the disposal of the first application cannot be raised at the stage of second bail application.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there are fresh grounds and those grounds can be considered. He contended that except the informant none of the witnesses cited in the FIR has come forward to support the prosecution case. He referred to the supplementary affidavit and stated that all these witnesses have been discharged. The informant is not an independent witness. Since the prosecution had concluded its evidence regarding the fact there is no apprehension of tampering of the evidence.

The learned AGA contended that a single testimony if believed is sufficient to base conviction and, therefore, discharging of the witnesses of fact is of no consequence.

The learned Counsel referred to the statement of the informant and contended that it suffers from serious infirmities. The learned AGA contended that the presence of the informant is natural and reliable and there are no serious infirmities in his evidence. He also contended that since only the formal witnesses are to be examined the trial Court can conclude the trial at the earliest.

On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I do not find the applicant to be entitled to bail.

The application is rejected.