SANI @ SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh and Sri Digambar Dwivedi holding brief of Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. 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-Sani @ Sunil Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.385 of 2017, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report has been registered against six other named accused persons but the police after investigation has exonerated two accused persons and has submitted charge sheet only against four other accused persons. It is argued that the occurrence in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 28.06.2017 and after the same lodging of the First Information Report, in the first statement of the first informant, the applicant is not named. It is stated that subsequently on 31.08.2017, the second statement of the first informant was recorded in which she has although named the applicant and four others being Yatendra Singh Thakur, Gandharv, Bhanu and Yogesh but exonerated all the accused named in the FIR. The naming of the applicant is only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that later on the name of the applicant has surfaced after 1 year and 7 months from the date of the incident in the statement of Ajab Singh and Shashi Kant Upadhyay. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Yatendra Singh Thakur and Yogesh have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Bench vide orders dated 02.07.2021, 22.7.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4591 of 2021 (Yatendra Singh Thakur Vs. State of U.P.) and 15313 of 2021 (Yogesh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. It is further argued that even in the statement recorded after 1 year and 7 months, the evidence coming against the applicant after naming him is of last seen only as such the case of the applicant stands at a better footing than that of co-accused who has been granted bail. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been disclosed in para no.13 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 17.01.2021.