Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1416 (ALL)

Ranjeet Yadav @ Chooha v. State of U. P.

2017-05-29

VIPIN SINHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned Senior counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Saraimamrej, District Allahabad. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; though the applicant has been named in the F.I.R. but he was not an eye-witness to the incident; as per the post-mortem report, there was no external injury on the body of the deceased and the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved; after a period of two months, Sani Singh was examined and in his statement, the applicant has been named; similarly, in the statement of Divakar Yadav, the cousin brother of the deceased, was recorded and he has also named the applicant, however, the fact remains that as per the contention of counsel for the applicant the said two persons have been examined after a period of two months and if the cousin brother of the deceased had seen the deceased in the company of the applicant then the name of the applicant should have been disclosed much earlier; both the said witnesses have given only the evidence of last seen but there are no injuries on the body of the deceased and nobody actually had seen the applicant disposing of the body of the deceased. Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail application by filing counter affidavit and annexing thereto the statement of Ram Naresh and Shyam Ji @ Daroga. Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail application by filing counter affidavit and annexing thereto the statement of Ram Naresh and Shyam Ji @ Daroga. However, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the fact remains that they have been examined after a period of two months and the statement as made clearly shows as per the statement of Shyam Ji himself “Rahul Ki Hatya Unhone Kaise ki hum nahi dekh paye” thus all these witnesses are concocted that their statements which have been recorded after a period of two months of the incident are highly dubious, the evidence is not credible, that nobody has seen the incident the applicant has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that four persons who have been introduced after a period of two months one of them is the cousin brother of the deceased and the other three are of the same village and friendly with each other; it is highly unbelievable that four persons have seen the incident where one person is being assaulted and no person helps the persons being assaulted and they do not interfere and quietly go home to sleep and then wake up after a period of two months with their eye-witness account; the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. Let the applicant Ranjeet Yadav @ Chooha involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.