Allahabad High Court
Deepak Rajbhar @ Pintu vs State Of U.P. on 30 August, 2011
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15982 of 2011
Petitioner :- Deepak Rajbhar @ Pintu
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Dhirendra Kr. Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This Crl. Misc. Bail Application has been moved by the applicant Deepak Rajbhar @ Pintu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 230 of 2010, under sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Beerbal Rajbhar on 20.10. 2010 at 08.10 a.m. in respect of incident allegedly occurred on 19.10.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. It is alleged that two unknown miscreants came on a motorcycle who taken away to the deceased on their motorcycle on 19.10.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., but in the next morning the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a field of paddy. During investigation, the name of the applicant and other co-accused came into light. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, who rejected the same on 19.01.2011.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is alleged that two unknown miscreants came at the house of the deceased, the deceased had gone in their company on their motorcycle, but in the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the field of paddy. The statement of the mother of the deceased is after thought. In case she had identified the miscreants, the name of the miscreants wound have been disclosed. According to her statement, Tarak came to receive call of the co-accused, he was sent by Deepak Rajbhar. The deceased had gone in the company of applicant. On the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found. According to the prosecution version, the evidence of last seen has been collected by the investigating officer and there is no other evidence against the applicant, but it is alleged that at the pointing out of the accused Deepak Rajbhar, one gupti has been recovered. The recovery of gupti is not supported by any independent witness. There is no eyewitness account. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, but he has been falsely implicated in this case due to suspicion. The applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence. There is no credible evidence against the applicant, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
In reply to the above contention it is submitted by learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant that it is a preplanned murder. The deceased was called from his house by the applicant and other co-accused, thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found in a field of paddy on the road side. At the pointing out of the applicant accused Deepak Rajbhar, gupti has been recovered from a field of Arahar. The applicant and other co-accused were having strong motive to commit the murder of deceased because the accused Deepak was having love affair with the wife of the deceased. The accused Deepak wants to marry with the wife of deceased. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may temper with the evidence, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that this case is based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness account. The applicant is not named in the FIR. During investigation, the statement of the witnesses have been recorded with regard to the evidence of last seen and at the pointing out of the accused Deepak Rajbhar, one gupti has been recovered from a field of Arhar. There is no other evidence against the applicant. He is in jail since 02.12.2010.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Deepak Rajbhar @ Pintu involved in Case Crime No. 230 of 2010, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the conditions:-
That the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.
That he shall report to the court of C.J.M. concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour till conclusion of the trial.
In case of default in any of the above mentioned conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be deemed cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.8.2011
v.k.updh.
