Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 442 (ALL)

RAJENDRA v. STATE O

2008-02-26

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2008
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Rajendra with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 606 of 2007 under section 304 I. P. C. , P. S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Surendra on 25. 11. 2007 at 07. 50 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 24/25. 11. 2007 at about 02. 00 p. m. In present case the applicant and co-accused Smt. Reena are named in FIR as accused whereas the co-accused Smt. Reena is the wife of the first informant. It is alleged that she was having illicit relations with the applicant. The deceased being father-in-law of co-accused Smt. Reena was objecting the applicant and co-accused, he was considered to be an obstruction by the applicant and co-accused in continuation of their illicit relations that is why they have committed the murder of the deceased Suraj Singh and ran away from the house of the deceased. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 7 ante mortem injuries and the cause of death was due to ante mortem smothering. 3. Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri C. V. S. Raghuvansi, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that FIR of this case has been lodged only on the-basis of doubt and suspicion and the alleged witness has not been witnessed by any person but during investigation the statement of some witnesses were recorded which are not reliable and there is no credible evidence to show that applicant has committed the murder of the deceased. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he is an innocent person, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that applicant was having strong motive to commit tlv murder of the deceased. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he is an innocent person, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that applicant was having strong motive to commit tlv murder of the deceased. He was having illicit relations with the daughter-in-law o the deceased for which the deceased was having the objections, consequently, the daughter-in-law of the deceased and applicant have committed the murder of the de ceased by way of strangulation and after committing the murder of the deceased to daughter-in-law along with the applicant ran away from her house in the same nigh at about 12. 00 Oclock. During investigation protest bangles, ring and a chain of co accused Smt. Reena, were also found from the coat of the deceased. The statement of Somant Singh has also been recorded by the I. O. who claimed himself to be an eye- witness and stated that he saw that the deceased was over powered by the applicant and co-accused Smt. Reena and they were pressing the mouth of the deceased. The circumstances also shows that the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and co-accused. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 6. Considering the facts, circum stances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A, and learned Counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the gravity of the offence which is too much, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application Rejected .