HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21417 of 2015 Applicant :- Ram Kumar Yadav @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Deepak Dubey Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A as well as Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated due to friendship with co-accused; that the applicant had no motive to commit the offence in question; that the applicant was not present at the place of alleged incident at the time of occurrence; that at the time of alleged incident the applicant was in Maikhana (Beer Bar), Teliarganj, Allahabad and was taking beer with Rajendra Kumar son of Ram Chandra; that in this regard affidavits have been submitted by Mithlesh Kumar Shukla and Kunjraj Yadav, the officials of said Beer Bar, who have also corroborated these allegations in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that in this matter after investigation and looking into C.C.T.V. footage of the Beer Bar, the Investigating Officer had moved an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for release of applicant which was wrongly rejected by the Magistrate concerned; that apart from above, two witnesses namely Om Prakash Yadav and Sobhnath Yadav who alleged to have over-heard conversations of accused persons, have not mentioned the name of the applicant in their statements; that the deceased was a person of criminal antecedents against whom five cases were pending as mentioned in para 24 of the affidavit and had enmity with several persons; that the applicant has been falsely implicated in few cases, in which, he is on bail as mentioned in para 26 of the bail application; that the correctness of C.C.T.V. footage is not disputed and is established; that the applicant was not present at the spot at the relevant date and time; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 04.04.2015.
Learned A.G.A. and Sri Deepak Dubey, counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant is a person of criminal antecedents and is an influential person; that due to above reasons the Investigating Officer did not investigate the case correctly and after no investigation till 8 days and obtaining certain affidavits of Mithlesh & others in collusion with the accused-applicant submitted application for release of applicant on 9th and 10th day of occurrence; that the affidavits as well as statements of Mithlesh Kumar Sukla, Kunjraj Yadav etc. are not admissible; that the plea of ali bi is false and may not be looked into at this stage as the same is to be seen at the time of final disposal of Sessions Trial after evidence; that the manipulated C.C.T.V. footage does not prove absence of applicant on the spot at the time of incident; that the above C.C.T.V. footage relates to outside the Beer Bar and there is no evidence to show that the above Beer Bar had no other exit ; that the possibility of entering from one door and of making exit rom the other may not be ruled out; that the C.C.T.V. footage are not admissible at this stage and does not prove absence of applicant from the spot; that it is wrong to say that at about 4:30 pm, the applicant was taking beer with Rajendra Kumar and the allegations are wrong on the face of the record as there is no bill or cash-memo to support the allegations of consumption of any beer or snacks by the applicant; that in the affidavits of Mithlesh Kumar and Kunjraj Yadav have stated that one Rajendra Kumar was allegedly taking beer with the applicant while Investigation Officer went on to record the statements of Rajendra Kumar and Rajendra Yadav the two persons of two different places both of whom claims to be taking beer with the applicant while above Mithlesh Kumar and Kunjraj Yadav have stated that the applicant was taking beer with only one person; that the Investigating Officer has not taken due care to investigate as to the mobile number mentioned in the affidavits of Mithlesh Kumar and Kunjraj really belongs to applicant or not and no evidence has been collected to ascertain the location of the alleged mobile at the time of incident.; that this is a case of murder at 5:00 p.m. during day light by indiscriminate firing by four persons and there is eye witness account of the incident; that the F.I.R. has been lodged wrongly within 2 hours; that there is no question of false implication of the applicant; that the Investigating Officer has not acted impartially and independently rather has acted under the influence of influential person-the applicant; that the application moved by Investigating Officer under Section 169 for release of applicant has been rightly rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 13.05.2015 wherein the Magistrate has also directed the SSP concerned for taking disciplinary enquiry / action against him; that the post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained as many as 10 fire arm injuries; that the active role has been assigned to the applicant; that the applicant is an influential person and since he is capable of putting influence on Investigating Officer from inside the jail, if released, shall make misuse of the liberty of bail and tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record as well as considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
The bail application of applicant involved in Case Crime No. 208/2015, under Sections 302, 394/34, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad is rejected.
However, the trail court is directed to conclude the trail expeditiously.
Order Date :- 16.06.2015 Akram