PANKAJ VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that no one has seen the incident dated 19.09.2011 in which deceased Laxmikant was shot dead. The applicant was neither named in the First Information Report nor in the first statement of the informant. Subsequently, in the second statement of informant recorded on 11.10.2011, the name of the applicant was disclosed. Thereafter witnesses were introduced. The statement of witnesses were recorded on 20.11.2011. Witness Nandlal in his first statement has not named the applicant subsequently on 20.11.2011 in his second statement, he named the applicant. These circumstances clearly shows that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. He has no previous criminal history hence he is entitled for bail. He is in jail since 31.10.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial.