Court No. 20
Criminal Misc. Case No. 4682 (B) of 2008
Brij Raj @ Vijay ...Versus... State of U.P
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.
The accused-applicant Brij Raj @ Vijay is involved and detained in
Case Crime No. 172 of 2006, under Sections 302 I.P.C., from Police Station
Haliyapur, District Sultanpur and he is facing trial in S.T. No. 246 of 2006
arising out of charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer in the above
case crime number. The accused applicant has moved bail application which is
5th bail application.
In this case the accused applicant is facing trial for committing murder
of his wife. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is
that the first bail application was rejected by this court on merit and second,
third and fourth bail application were disposed of by this Court with the
observation that the accused applicant may move bail application before the
trial court on fresh grounds.
The learned counsel for the accused applicant contends that as per
prosecution case, the accused applicant had shot his wife dead. The
complainant is father of the deceased, who is not eye-witness of the
occurrence. Guru Prasad (P.W.3) is said to be eye-witness of the occurrence,
who had seen the accused applicant coming out from his house armed with
‘Katta’ after committing murder of his wife. Guru Prasad (P.W.3) is resident of
another village which is 30 Kms. away from the village of occurrence. Guru
Prasad (P.W.3) has stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to his
relative Chhedi alias Nakchhed who is resident of the village of occurrence. In
this way, Guru Prasad (P.W.3) is a chance witness. The accused applicant had
examined Chhedi alias Nakcheed as D.W.3 who has stated that Guru Prasad
(P.W.3) had never come to his house either on the date of occurrence or before
or after the date of occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that an empty
cartridge was found on the spot. At the time of post mortem examination of
the deceased report, a pellet was found in the dead body of the deceased. The
empty cartridge and pellet were sent to the ballistics expert for examination
who has reported that it was not possible to give any opinion whether the pellet
found in the body of the deceased was shot by the empty cartridge found at the
spot. Further submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that
a personal diary maintained by the deceased was found by the accused. The
deceased in her diary noted that she was going to commit suicide. The extracts
of her suicide note and her hand writing available on another record were sent
to the hand-writing and finger print expert for comparison who has opined that
the admitted hand writing of the deceased is tallying with the hand writing of
the suicide note. In this way, there is no evidence against the accused applicant.
Therefore, he deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused
applicant and learned A.G.A.
The learned counsel for the accused applicant informs that the trial
pending against the accused applicant is at its final stage which is fixed for
argument. At this stage, I do not find it proper to make any meticulous
comments on the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court.
Since the trial is at the argument stage, therefore, it will not be proper to admit
the accused applicant on bail.
The application for bail is, therefore, rejected.
03.02.2010
Sanjay/-