ANUJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record. Applicant -Anuj Kumar seeks bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly.

(2.) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. The applicant along with other three co -accused persons were assigned omnibus role of danda and farsa causing death of two persons, namely, Smt. Devanti and her son Suresh. He further argued that there being material contradiction between the FIR the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecution case becomes wholly unreliable. The name of another co -accused Ravi @ Nikku was introduced during course of investigation and he has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 6.7.2011. He further pointed out that the FIR lodged after much delay i.e. on 6.3.2011 at about 8.05 am while the incident took place on 5.3.2011 at about 9 pm. and there is no proper explanation for this inordinate delay. He next argued that the applicant is in jail since 13.3.2011 and the trial has not commenced which is likely to consume some time, thus he deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.