PRADEEP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajpal Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri I.P.S. Rajpoot, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Pradeep, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 52 of 2019, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report was registered by Gorey Lal under Section 364 IPC on 09.04.2019 stating therein that on 06.04.2019 his son-in-law Rakesh had gone for fixing eyes of some statue but did not return. It was found that his mobile was left at the house itself and on the last received call efforts were made to get connected but the same was found to be switched off. A search was made but no information could be gathered. He has further argued that the FIR was registered against unknown person on 09.04.2019. It is then argued that the statement of the first informant was recorded on 10.04.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is annexed as annexure 2 in which in the end he has raised suspicion on one Rajesh Prajapati and has stated that he may have got the said incident done. It is argued that later on Rajesh Prajapati was arrested who has taken the name of the applicant for the first time as an accused in the matter on 10.04.2019 and after that the applicant was arrested on the same day and his confessional statement was recorded by the police. Subsequently it is stated that in the second statement of the first informant, copy of which is annexed as annexure 10 which was recorded on 13.04.2019 even the participation of the applicant is not shown and since the applicant was arrested on 10.04.2019 the first informant reached the police station and had identified him and said that he and co-accused Badal had taken the deceased for getting the said eye repaired. It is argued that the said identification is no identification in the eyes of law as there is all together separate procedure for conducting test identifications.