Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar & Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 August, 2018
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Daya Shankar Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2501 of 2011
Appellant :- Manoj Kumar & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kunwar Siddharth Singh,K.D. Singh,Manvendra Narain Pathak,Shiv Lal,Sunil Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Ravi Shankar Yadav,Virendra Pratap
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 175371 of 2014.
Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant-appellants.
The applicant no. 1 alongwith his mother have been convicted for the murder of the wife of the applicant. The applicant's mother Smt. Dhandei has been granted bail by this Court on 16th July, 2013 and by the same order the prayer for bail of the applicant-appellant Manoj Kumar has been rejected. Hence this second bail application.
Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak has primarily urged that the period of detention should be taken into consideration for releasing the appellant on bail as this appeal is of the year 2011 and its hearing is likely to take some time.
We have heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak and also gone through the judgment of the trial court.
Prima facie we find that the deceased died of 100% burn injuries in the house of the applicant-appellant. It is also evident from the judgment that the applicant-appellant has alleged that the deceased had been taken to hospital by him on a Jeep. The fact, therefore, prima facie is that the applicant-appellant was very much present atleast immediately after the incident or else he would not have taken the deceased to the hospital as alleged. The evidence which was led upon being assessed by the trial court was found to be clearly against the applicant-appellant and it was also observed that the applicant-appellant and his family fled away from the hospital where the deceased had collapsed midway while being transported. It is also evident from the judgment that the information to the relatives of the deceased, namely, her brother was not received through the applicant-appellants and that the message had been received from a lady on telephone, whereafter the first informant Subhash proceeded on a motorcycle and while he was on his way, he found that the body of his sister was being carried in a Jeep by the appellant-applicant and his family members who also accompanied them. After arriving at the hospital, the applicant-appellants fled away and the judgment also indicates that the appellant no. 1 Manoj was arrested on 1st April, 2009 and the appellant no. 2 was arrested on 29th March, 2009. Consequently the fact that the appellants had fled away appears to be taken into account by the trial court while arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the offence.
In view of this the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant do not appeal at this stage for releasing the appellant-applicant Manoj on bail. The lower court records have already been received. The office is directed to prepare the paper books within three weeks. The request for bail of the applicant-appellant Manoj in this second bail application is refused. The appeal is expedited for hearing.
Order Date :- 30.8.2018
S.Chaurasia
