Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 472 (ALL)

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U. P.

2020-02-12

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Ranjeet Kumar in Case Crime No.435 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur with prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case during investigation. It was submitted that during investigation involvement of the applicant was shown in the alleged incident on the basis of statement of one Ram Vriksh and said Ram Vriksh has not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile, copy of his statement has been filed along with rejoinder affidavit. It was further submitted that the applicant had no motive to commit murder of his mother. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant has one more brother and motive attributed to the applicant that he wanted to grab his mother's property cannot be believed and that there is no evidence against the applicant. It was further argued that in case, applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial and he is languishing in jail since 26.08.2017. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail and argued that there are allegations against the applicant that he has committed murder of his mother with motive to grab her property. It was submitted that the applicant himself lodged F.I.R. against innocent persons in order to falsely implicate them and to save himself but during investigation involvement of applicant was found. It was further submitted that trial of the case is at progress and evidence recorded before trial Court cannot be appreciated at this stage. 6. Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, conduct of applicant, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail has been made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Ranjeet Kumar is rejected. 8. 6. Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, conduct of applicant, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail has been made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Ranjeet Kumar is rejected. 8. However, considering the period of detention of the applicant, learned trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavor to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of the order before it.