Sanju vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application as been filed by applicant Sanju with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2006, under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Khandauli, district Agra.

The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Rahmat Ali on 18.4.2006 at 10.25 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.4.2006 at 12.00 O''clock in the night of 17/18.4.2006. The applicant and four other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the deceased Pappu alias Sirajuddin the son of the first informant has been murdered by the applicant and four other co-accused persons by way of strangulation in the night of 17/18.4.2006. The alleged incident was witnessed by Inshaf Ali and Nisar. According to the post mortem examination report, the cause of death was strangulation.

Heard Sri V. Singh and Sri D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the first informant is not eye-witness, he has lodged F.I.R. on the basis of the information received. In the present case, Smt. Rani, the wife of the deceased has also been made accused. The F.I.R. is delayed. There is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The statements of the alleged witnesses have been recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure According to their statements, they were chance witnesses and they had seen to accused persons when they were throttling the deceased. The presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The house of the applicant was about two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. There was no motive for the applicant to commit the alleged occurrence and there was no source of light to recognize the real assailants. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but due to ill-will of the first informant, he has been falsely implicated.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons, the prosecution story is fully corroborated by medical examination report. There was no reason for false implication of the applicant. The deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused, in the present case the wife of the deceased is also accused. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and considering the gravity of the offence 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.