Court No. - 33 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15678 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shyamvir Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state and
perused the record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
not named in the F.I.R. The prosecution case against him stands upon the
circumstantial evidence which is not conclusive. It is alleged that since
13.1.2010 the deceased,Parmeshwari Dayal remained untraceable and on his
disappearance F.I.R. was registered on 17.1.2010 The dead body of the
deceased is alleged to have been recovered on 25.1.2010, 90 kms. away from
the place of incident and the post mortem examination was held on 28.1.2010.
As per the medical opinion, duration of the death of the deceased was about
five days. The complicity of the applicant as a participant in the crime is
wholly based upon the statement of Sri Krishan recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. on 25.1.2010 who is alleged to have seen the deceased in the
company of the applicant and other co-accused-non-applicants on 13.1.2010.
He has further argued that there has been sufficient time gap between the
evidence when the accused applicant was last seen together with the deceased
and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete
the chain of circumstances, the applicant cannot be held guilty after relying
upon such evidence for the murder of the deceased. He further contends that
so far as recovery of clothes and wire of motorcycle is alleged to have been
recovered at the joint pointing out of applicant and two other co-accused-non-
applicants which is not admissible under the Evidence Act. It was further
argued that applicant, has no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be
released on bail at this stage.
The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. as well as by the
learned counsel for the informant by contending that the prosecution is
apprehensive of the fact that in case the applicant is allowed to be released on
bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process
and tampering with the prosecution evidence, thus he does not deserve to be
released on bail at this stage.
It is further contended that co-accused Dheeraj has already been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 19.5.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 11864 of 2010. The facts of the case of the applicant is
similar to co-accused Dheeraj, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let applicant
Shyamvir involved in case crime no. 96 of 2010 under sections 364, 302, 201
I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.6.2010
ss