Allahabad High Court
Rohit @ Kallu vs State Of U.P. on 21 July, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23823 of 2016
Applicant :- Rohit @ Kallu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jahangir Jamshed Munir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A and private counsel for complainant Sri Amir Khan, who has filed Vakalatnama today and perused the record.
F.I.R was lodged by the neighbour of the deceased on 23.04.2016 alleging that in the morning of 23.04.2016 he found the deceased dead on his bed by some injuries upon his head. During the investigation complicity of the accused came into the picture in the statement of one Mohd. Irfan.
It is submitted by learned counsel that accused-applicant is not named in the F.I.R.
It is also stated that applicant has been implicated falsely in the case on the statement of one Mohd. Irfan. Mohd. Irfan narrated that the applicant and his father Satish after committing the crime fled away from the place of incident. It is further submitted that applicant was not known to Mohd. Irfan, so how could he identify the accused-applicant on the spot. Mohd. Irfan did not tell the complicity to the son of deceased immediately. This fact was revealed after eight days.
It is next contended that the applicant is in jail since 19.05.2016 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Whereas learned counsel for the complainant side argued that accused is neighbour of deceased and for the last one year they have enmity regarding sale of diesel.
Considered the submissions made by the parties as well as gone through the records and particularly the statement of Mohd. Irfan. It can very well be inferred that just to solve the case the police has cooked-up the story and statement of Mohd. Irfan does not inspire the confidence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the complicity of the accused-applicant is not very clear and seeing the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material brought on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let the applicant ? Rohit @ Kaalu involved in Case Crime No. 240 of 2016, under Sections 302, I.P.C, Police Station ? Soorajpur, District ? Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 21.07.2016.
Vinod.
