Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2285 (ALL)

Amit Kumar Kushwaha @ Mintu v. State of U. P.

2024-11-07

AJAY BHANOT

body2024
JUDGMENT : AJAY BHANOT, J. 1. Matter is taken up in the revised call. 2. By means of the bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged him on bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2024 at Police Station-Gauri Bazar, District- Deoria under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C & Section 4/25 Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 12.01.2024. 3. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 24.04.2024. 4. The following arguments made by Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla and Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is husband of the deceased. 2. The applicant resides in Mumbai for his livelihood. 3. The deceased was living with her parents and was running a garments shop. 4. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence. 5. The prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the deceased was returning home at 09:00 PM on 09.01.2023, when she called first informant to inform that she had reached the I.T.I. School. Thereafter the deceased did not respond to the calls made by the first informant on her mobile phone. The first informant went out for search with one Shailesh Kushwaha and found the body of the deceased near the road. The muffler was tied around the neck of the deceased and neck was also cut. 6. According to the FIR, some unknown person had murdered the deceased. 7. The FIR was lodged on 10.01.2024 at about 02:07 AM. 8. The applicant was not named in the FIR. 9. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 10. The applicant was subsequently nominated in the statement of the first informant made before the police authorities one day after the incident. 11. The said nomination is based only on suspicion. Suspicion no matter how grave is no substitute for evidence. The said statement is unreliable for other reasons as well. There was no cause for the failure of the first informant to promptly inform the police authorities about the complicity of the applicant in the offence. The applicant was nominated as an after thought and at the instigation of inimical parties. 12. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 13. There was no cause for the failure of the first informant to promptly inform the police authorities about the complicity of the applicant in the offence. The applicant was nominated as an after thought and at the instigation of inimical parties. 12. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 13. The applicant was not last seen with the deceased at the time proximate to the death of the latter. 14. One knife and some blood stained cloths were planted on the applicant by the police authorities to burnish their credentials. There is no independent witness to the recovery. 15. There was no cause for the applicant to wear blood stained clothes for two days after committing the offence. The prosecution story set up by the police lacks credibility. 16. The applicant is not flight risk. The applicant being law abiding citizen have always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of him influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or re-offending. 5. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Amit Kumar Kushwaha @ Mintu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 7. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/s 482 No. 2613 of 2023). 8. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.