ADARSH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) Submission is that the applicant was not named in the first information report. After 15 days of the incident one witness, Shri Ram Sharma, has taken the name of the applicant as the person who was also involved in the murder of the deceased, Radhey Shyam Sharma. His name has also been taken by one, Sonu Yadav, who has stated that applicant along with co-accused, Tej Pratap Singh, came at his shop for getting the 'bakhua' (sharp edged weapon) sharpened. The injuries on the person of the deceased are incised wounds. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the recovery of the alleged weapon was made on the pointing of the co-accused, Tej Pratap Singh. In case witness was aware that the applicant was involved in this case why he was waiting for naming him before the Investigating Officer for 15 days. Delay of recording the statement of the witness has not been explained. Applicant alleges false implication in this case. Co-accused, Lalita Katiyar, has been enlarged on bail vide order 06.12.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54158 of 2019. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

(3.) On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.