KAPIL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Om Prakash Kannaujia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned brief holder appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material brought on record.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to apprehension. It is next submitted that there is no credential evidence against the applicant which may show involvement of the applicant in the present case. There is no independent reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is lastly contended that co-accused namely Manoj Kumar Yadav, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dtd. 01/11/2021, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 37188 of 2021, (copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record), the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 13/12/2020, and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant without disputing the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in case applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail.