Court No. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11847 of 2010
Dhirendra Pathak alias Sonu Vs. State of U.P.
and
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9870 of 2010
Chandra Prakash Mall Vs. State of U.P.
.-.-.-.
Hon'ble B.N. Shukla,J.
These two bail applications are heard together and are disposed of by
the common order.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Rao and Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the applicant Dhirendra Pathak alias Sonu and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant Chandra Prakash Mall, Sri Manish Tiwari,
learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and case is based on
circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the occurrence is said to
have taken place on 13.1.2010 and in the FIR lodged on 25.1.2010 no
allegation has been made against the applicants and it was registered under
section 364 IPC and in missing report which was lodged by Smt. Ranjana
Singh wife of Deepanshu Singh there was nothing against the applicants and
the applicants were arrested by the police after getting information from the
police informer and then they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further contended that in the post mortem report age of the deceased has
been shown 30 years and duration of death is 3-4 days which shows that the
deceased has died in between night of 22/23.1.2010 and it also shows that
he was alive since 13.1.2010 to 22.1.2010. It is further contended that the
dead body of Deepanshu Singh was found floating in the Ami river and which
was said to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicants on
25.1.2010 and it shows that the entire investigation was worked out in one
day and the entire case has been fabricated after recovery of dead body.
Lastly it is contended that name of the applicant Chandra Prakash Mall and 2
others came in confessional statement of co-accused Atik and there is no
direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicants to connect them with
murder of the deceased.
2
3. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have contended
that the applicant Chandra Prakash Mall had illicit relationship with wife of the
deceased and on pointing out of the applicants dead body was recovered and
on pointing out by applicant Dhirendra Pathak alias Sonu mobile of the
deceased was recovered and from pointing out of applicant Chandra Prakash
Mall ATM card, ignition key of the Activa motorcycle was recovered. It is further
contended that there are statements of Kanchan Sharma and Ashok Jaiswal
who is owner of Chevrolet Spark vehicle and he has given statement that the
applicants had hired this vehicle and thus there are chain of circumstances
against the applicants and no reason has been given for false implication.
4. In FIR lodged on 25.1.2010 there is nothing against the applicants. For
the first time on information given by the police informer the applicants were
arrested by the police and then alleged recovery has been shown. The doctor
has given duration of death about 3-4 days. Confessional statement of co-
accused has been recorded after about 15 days from the date of alleged
occurrence. In para 14 of the affidavit filed with the bail application of Chandra
Prakash Mall it is mentioned that the applicant was never class mate with wife of
the deceased and in para 15 of the affidavit reason for false implication has
been given. Recovery has been shown on 30.1.2010. The dead body was
found in floating condition.
5. Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
6. Let the applicants Dhirendra Pathak alias Sonu and Chandra Prakash
Mall involved in case crime no. 178 of 2010, under section 364, 302, 201, 120B,
394, 411 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating the witnesses.
2. They shall cooperate with the investigation and speedy trial.
3. They shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.
In case any condition is violated the courts concerned shall inform the
High Court so that necessary steps may be taken for the cancellation of the bail.
Dt/-6.8.2010
Masarrat/