Allahabad High Court
Pramod Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2018
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1963 of 2016
Appellant :- Pramod Rajbhar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Ref :Cr. Misc.Bail Application No.112788 of 2014.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State on the bail application of the appellant who has been convicted in S.T.No. 377 of 2012, crime no. 358 of 2012, under Sections 302 I.P.C. police station Dildar Nagar District Ghazipur and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. All the three alleged witnesses are interested witnesses. P.W.-1 is the maternal uncle of the deceased, P.W.-2 is the son of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 is the mother of the deceased. It has been further submitted that P.W.-1 belonged to another village. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that the deceased was having any strained relation with the deceased. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. The applicant is in jail since 5.8.2012.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant in the year 2006 and a daughter was also born with their wedlock. According to the first information report, the appellant Pramod Rajbhar suspected about the deceased's character and used to harass and commit marpit with her. According to F.I.R., the deceased lived separately from her husband at Mughalsarai and was working as a nurse in a hospital. On the fateful day, she was returning to her village Nirhu Ka Pura from Mughalsarai. No sooner did she reach at the said village near the house of one Shatrughan Rajbhar at about 8.00 a.m., her husband shot her dead with a 315 bore country made pistol and set her on fire after pouring petrol upon her. Hearing the sound of firing several people in the vicinity arrived at the spot and saw the accused appellant fleeing away from the spot carrying a country made pistol in his hands; while making an escape the appellant got slipped and fell down on the Kharanja pathway as such he was apprehended by the informant on the spot. There is cogent and convincing evidence against the appellant, no question arises for false implication of the appellant in this case. It has been further submitted that the accused was arrested on the spot with the country made pistol having cartridge stuck in its barrel. The same was sent to Ballistic Examination Report. According to Ballistic Examination Report, the said cartridge was used by the appellant in the commission of the said offence. It has been further submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous offence killing his wife in a broad day light and he was not granted bail during trial and is not entitled for bail.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is declined and the bail application is hereby rejected.
Office is directed to prepare the paper books and list this appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 24.5.2018
Gss
