Allahabad High Court
Omveer vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164541
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2736 of 2022
Applicant :- Omveer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that on 30.03.2021 at about 10 - 11 A.M, one Udayveer, father of the informant went along with the accused persons for some work and did not come back home. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant along with other co-accused was last seen with the victim and the last seen witnesses are Ajayveer, Pooran and Acharya Deen Dayal. It is submitted that the applicant never went with the victim (father of the informant). There is no other evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till date the victim has not been recovered, however, some pieces of bone have been recovered which have been shown to be the bones belonging to the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrapal versus State of Chhattisgarh, to submit that only on the basis of last seen evidence, the applicant cannot be prosecuted.
3. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and stated that there is last seen evidence against the applicant. The applicant was last seen with the victim on 30.03.2021, whereas the bones have been recovered on 07.04.2021 and the same have been identified with the cloths of the victim, however, the time of death could not be ascertained. It is further submitted that there was previous enmity with the accused persons and as such it is on the accused persons to explain the last seen evidence.
4. In the present case, the last seen evidence has not been explained. There are three eye-witnesses, Ajayveer and Pooran and independent witness Acharya Deen Dayal who has seen the victim along with the accused persons while they were taking liquor. The bail application of co-accused Satyaveer has already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41668 of 2021. The role of the applicant and co-accused is similar in nature.
5. It is to be seen that there is last seen evidence against the applicant which has been corroborated by the statement of three witnesses. It is further to be seen that previous enmity is admitted to both the parties. Bones of the victim has been recovered on 07.04.2023 and also the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court 05.04.2022 having the same role. The bail application of the applicant lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant in Case Crime No. 62 of 2021 under Section 364 I.P.C. P.S.- Linepar, District- Firozabad, is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Sumit Kumar
