Allahabad High Court
Amarpal vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14756 of 2023
Applicant :- Amarpal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi,Sushil Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.127 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Saifani, District Rampur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and two other named accused persons are said to have fired at the husband of the deceased person in the night on 6.10.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., whereby the informant, who happens to be wife of the deceased person, woke up after hearing the gunshot as such seen the accused-applicant and co-accused person Chandrabhan running away from the scene of occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the autopsy report does not match with the weapon recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. A country made pistol of .315 bore has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant while the injury sustained by the deceased is (5x3) cm on his head and blackening and tattooing are present. Learned counsel has stated that there is no eye-witness to the incident. It is a blind murder and the statement of other witnesses indicates that they have not seen any person at the scene of occurrence. The solitary witness is wife of the deceased person who is an interested witness and her evidence is of not having seen firing at the deceased as such applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.10.2022.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the very fact that it is the informant who had seen the applicant and other accused person running away from the scene of occurrence just after the incident as such the said evidence is covered by Section 6 of the Evidence Act falling within the category of res jestae, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 10.4.2023
Vikas
