JAI PRAKASH @ MONU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. Neither the name of the applicant is disclosed in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The name of the applicant surfaced first time after three months from the date of incident in the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Deepak Rajbhar @ Manya, Shailesh Patel and Neeraj Patel. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession or at the pointing out of the applicant. Applicant has criminal history of other cases, which has been explained in the affidavit. Applicant is in jail since 24.11.2019, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It is next submitted that similarly situated co-accused, Usha Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 6.3.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9328 of 2020. Another co-accused, Deepak @ Deepu Patel has also been enlarged on bail by this Court on 9.6.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11311 of 2020. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, 1964 SCR (6) 623, has observed:

(3.) Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.