Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2006 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, P.S. Sashni Gate, district Aligarh.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Captain Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 7.7.2006 at about 6.15 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1.7.2006 at about 6.00. The applicant and four other co-accused persons are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the deceased Prabhat Sharma alias Prince had gone from his house at about 6.00 a.m. on 1.7.2006 to play the game of cricket. He had gone in the company of the applicant and four other co-accused, who had come to the house of the deceased to call him. But he did not return after a considerable period then his search was made by the first informant and his family members. The first informant went to the house of the applicant and four other co-accused to know the whereabouts of the deceased but the applicant and other co-accused did not meet the first informant and nothing was disclosed by their family members. In such circumstances, he drew the conclusion that the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons and his dead body has been concealed. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged by the first informant on 7.7.2006 at 6.15 a.m., on the same day at about 1.30 a.m. the applicant, co-accused Dileep Gautam, co-accused Vishal and co-accused Amit wee apprehended by the police. They confessed before the police and stated that the deceased has been murdered by them, thereafter his dead body had been buried in a pond and the same could not be recovered by them, at their pointing out the dead body was taken out from a pond. They also stated that the deceased has been murdered in furtherance of conspiracy hatched by them. In the conspiracy Km. Poonam Gautam the sister of the co-accused Dileep Gautam and Smt. Krishna Gautam were also involved. The deceased has been murdered with the intention to usurp the house of his father. It has been stated by the applicant and other co-accused that the deceased has been murdered by way of strangulation. According to the post-mortem examination report the cause of death was due to ante-mortem strangulation.

Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava. learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. of this case is too much delayed, there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant and other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. only on the basis of doubt and suspicion and at the joint pointing out of the applicant and other co-accused the dead body was allegedly recovered from a pond by digging the same which was buried. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. During investigation the evidence of last seen has also been collected. The evidence collected by the I.O. is of weak in nature. The recovery of dead body was not supported by any independent witness as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, the dead body recovered on 7.7.2006 thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. It has been lodged as ante-timed and the recovery of the dead body has not been supported by independent witnesses. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the deceased was called by applicant and other co-accused from his house at the pretext of playing the cricket. The deceased went in their company from his house, thereafter he did not return. The applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested by the police, they confessed before the police, at their pointing out dead body was recovered from a pond by removing the mud which was having four feet depth. The recovery was made in the presence of independent witnesses. The chain of circumstance is complete. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant, considering the gravity of the offence which 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 this application is rejected.