MUKESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Dilip Kumar and Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri B.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Mukesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 442 of 2010 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.

(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the first informant is not an eye-witness, in FIR there is no refer­ence that the alleged incident has been wit­nessed by any person. The information was given by the first informant about the acci­dental death whose dead body was em­bedded/inserted in the thresher but it was mentioned that in the evening of 16.4.2011, the deceased was called from his house by the applicant and other co-accused persons, though the first informant was not permit­ting the deceased to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused and in the morning the dead body was found. The report was scribed by Rajveer Singh that on 6.5.2010 i.e. after about 20 days of the al­leged incident, an application was moved before the S.S.P. Mainpuri making the alle­gation against the applicant, the same has been registered as FIR. The first informant has been interrogated by the I.O. he nar­rated the same story as mentioned in the FIR but on important queries made by I.O. the first informant kept silence, he was asked as to why he did not reveal the event of quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Subhash which occurred about 5 or 6 days prior to the alleged incident and as to why he allowed the decease to go in the company of accused persons, he was again quarried as to whether he had given written application on 17.4.2010 on in cor­rect facts about the death. He accepted that he had handed over the written informa­tion on the same day. Thereafter the I.O. had taken six affidavits from the family members of the victim. The said persons were, namely, Sadho Singh, the real brother of grand father of the victim, Nibhati lal real brother of grand father of the victim, Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra, the real uncles of the victim and one Subhash Chandra resident of Nagla Hare, the real maternal uncle of the victim, they had cor­roborated the concocted and improved ver­sion which had seen in the light of the day on 6.5.2010 for the first time. The statement of Subhash was also recorded showing that the applicant had made extra-judicial con­fession. The I.O. had recorded the state­ment of other persons in the case diary. Except above mentioned statement there is no evidence against the applicant. The en­tire story of prosecution is totally false and concocted and cooked up. In the present case no blood was found either on the thresher or near the thresher. According to the prosecution version there was no wheat crop and straw. The witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the I.O. are wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed on such belated and after thought version, the applicant is having no criminal antecedent.