Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3946 (ALL)

Sheokaran @ C. L. Pandit v. State of U. P.

2015-12-11

MANOJ MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.183 of 2015, under Sections 147, 302, 364, 201 IPC, Police Station Mujaria, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 3. A perusal of the record would go to show that, initially, a missing report was lodged on 07.06.2015 alleging that the brother of the informant had left his house on 04.06.2015 but did not return. Thereafter, on 08.06.2015, first information report was lodged without naming any person. On the next day, statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded who disclosed that the deceased had left the house on repeated phone calls from C.L. Pandit (the applicant). Thereafter, the police interrogated the applicant and, on 10.06.2015, recovered the body of the deceased on the pointing out of the applicant from near the Katari of Ganga. According to the postmortem report, death could have occurred 7-10 days before the postmortem, which roughly corresponds to 04.06.2015 that is the day when the deceased had left the house to meet the applicant and, thereafter, went missing. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the recovery of the dead body on the pointing out of the applicant is nothing but false and had the applicant been involved in the crime, then information ought to have been given much earlier with regards to the alleged phone calls made by the applicant to the deceased before he left his house. It has been submitted that the story that has been developed that on receiving phone calls from the applicant the deceased had left his house, is an afterthought. It has been submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that in this case the evidence suggests that on the call received from the applicant the deceased had left to meet the applicant and, thereafter, the deceased was not found alive and his body has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant, therefore, the chain of circumstances are complete. 6. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.