Santosh @ Zafar @ Prince vs State Of U.P.
2015 Latest Caselaw 255 ALL

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 255 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 April, 2015

Allahabad High Court

Santosh @ Zafar @ Prince vs State Of U.P. on 30 April, 2015

Bench: Ramesh Sinha




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 7718 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Santosh @ Zafar @ Prince
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sajjad Husain
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. for the State.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Smt. Radha, wife of the deceased and was the first informant of the case. He submits that the deceased was employed in railway. He submits that as per the counter affidavit, there is no eye witness of the incident. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 19.1.2014.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Radha in order to mislead the investigating agency had lodged a missing report of the deceased but during the course of investigation it was found that she herself has committed the murder of the deceased along with the applicant as she has illicit relations with the applicant.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Santosh @ Zafar @ Prince involved in Case Crime No. 388 of 2013 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., police station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within preferably a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., if, there is no legal impediment.

Order Date :- 30.4.2015

shiraz