Court No. - 8 Case :- BAIL No. - 8870 of 2009 Petitioner :- Nauman Hassmi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Brijendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,M H Khan Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Singh,J.
The Investigating Officer of the present case Sri Ramhit is present
today in the Court, he need not to appear again.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., Sri Vivek
Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the F.I.R.
and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.
Counter affidavit filed by the State, is taken on record.
The present incident as alleged took place on 14.9.2009 at about
5:30-6:30 in the morning. The report of the incident was lodged on
17.9.2009 at 9:30 a.m., wherein the complainant has alleged that
his daughter Km. Rekha aged about 16 years had gone to attend
the call of nature on the outskirt of the village and thereafter she
did not return. It is alleged therein by the complainant that he
believed that his daughter was kidnapped by co-accused Jugal
Kishor with the help of present applicant.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is
no other evidence than that of last seen by two witnesses, one
Pitambar Prasad Verma son of Hari Ram Verma and Ramesh
Kumar Verma son of Bahraichi Prasad Verma, whose statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after about seven days of
the incident as averred in para 7 of the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the
statement of Pitambar he has stated that on 14.9.2009 at about 6:15
p.m. when he was going to attend the call of nature, near brick
klin he saw accused-applicant alongwith the daughter of the
complainant Smt. Rekha Devi, on motorcycle. Smt. Rekha Devi
had covered her face with “Dupatta” and he fully believed that the
girl who was sitting behind accused-applicant was Smt. Rekha
Devi, daughter of the complainant Ramdev. He has also stated in
his statement that he did not inform anyone but on 19.9.2009 when
complainant met him he disclosed the incident which he had seen
on 14.9.2009. A specific question was put to him that when he had
seen the accused-applicant alongwith the daughter of the
complainant Smt. Rekha Devi then why did he not inform on the
very same day. In reply, he has stated that it was matter in which
persons of high status were involved, as such, he thought that they
could cause problems to him, as such, he did not disclose that he
had seen the daughter of complainant Smt. Rekha Devi going with
accused-applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits
that exactly the same version has been stated by witness Ramesh
Kumar Verma in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that one witness,
namely, Ram Milan has stated in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on 15.9.2009 he had seen one girl
wearing yellow sari to whom the accused-applicant had given
Rs.150/- as she was begging. Another witness Suresh Pandey, who
is driver of the bus also stated in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that a girl wearing yellow sari boarded the bus
and purchased a ticket worth Rs.35/- for going to Gonda.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application
and submitted that the statements of Ram Milan and Suresh
Pandey recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are of no value since
both the witnesses have not named Smt. Rekha Devi, it is only
mentioned in their statements that they saw a lady wearing yellow
sari. It is also stated by learned counsel for the complainant that
Smt. Rekha Devi has still not been recovered.
Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above and
also that the only evidence against the accused-applicant is of ‘last
seen’ and that too the two witnesses namely Pitambar and Ramesh
Kumar Verma informed the complainant after five days of the
occurrence, I find it to be a fit case for the applicant to be released
on bail. Let the applicant, Nauman Hassmi be released on bail in
Case Crime No.200/2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S.
Chapiya, District Gonda, on his filing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned/remand magistrate. However, the observations made
hereinabove will not affect the trial of the case.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010
Kpy