ALOK YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Alok Yadav, involved in Case Crime no.200 of 2015, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C. and 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh.

(2.) Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant along with Sri Yash Tandon, Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Sudha Singh, wife of the deceased, against Angad Yadav and Sunil Singh, saying that the two had got Raj Narayan Singh murdered due to animosity. The incident is said to have taken place at 7 a.m. on 19.12.2015. It is urged that the FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion alone, without any reference to an eye witness account. The applicant, Alok Yadav is not named in the FIR. It is urged that in the earliest statement of the informant, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. too, the applicant was not named. It is pointed out that the charge sheet was filed by the police against Angad Yadav, Sunil Singh, Arun Yadav and Sailesh. This charge sheet was filed on 05.03.2016 with no reference to the applicant's complicity. It is pointed out that four months after the incident, the applicant's name was brought in mala fide. It is argued by Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla that on 28.03.2016, the informant filed an application for further investigation. During investigation, that was carried on further, the informant named the applicant on the basis of what her sister, Prabha Singh had seen of the incident, but did not speak about it in the FIR or her earlier statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that Prabha Singh in her statement during further investigation said that in the morning on 19.12.2015 at 6 p.m., she heard gunshots and saw three people at the place of occurrence, where one fat man said, It is submitted that it is through the said statement of Prabha Singh that the applicant's name has been brought in on the basis of an afterthought and mala fide. It is argued by Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla that the applicant, Alok Yadav weighs a hundred kilograms and it is, therefore, hard to imagine as to who was the other fatter man, who called out to the applicant in the words above extracted. He submits that this shows the ex facie false character of the prosecution in implicating the applicant. It is also emphasized by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the assailants called out to the applicant in words to the effect that the deed was done, which shows that the applicant was not the assailant/ shooter. It is also argued that Prabha Singh did not know the applicant. It is not at all indicated as to how she identified him to be the one who was told by the shooters that the deed had been done. It is urged that there are inconsistencies between the statements of Sudha Singh and Shyam Bahadur Singh, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which demonstrate the falsity of the prosecution case. It is also said that the deceased was a member of a rival political party and, thus, the present prosecution has been brought with an ulterior motive. It is also argued that co-accused Sunil Singh, whose case is at par with the applicant, had been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.11992 of 2016. He submits that the criminal history of the applicant is well explained in paragraph 53 of the affidavit filed in support of the Bail Application, and on its basis, he cannot be refused bail. The applicant is in jail since 26.01.2019 with no possibility of an end to the trial in sight.