AJAY RAWAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) THE present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 116 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Nagram, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Initially, in the First Information Report suspicion was casted against one Vijay Pasi on the basis of statement of Shubham and Bhai Lal. The evidence against Vijay Pasi was said to be of last seen with the deceased. Subsequently, from the statement of Shubham and Bhai Lal it has come that the applicant was also seen with the deceased along with Vijay Pasi. It has been submitted that no motive has been assigned to the applicant although motive has been assigned to Vijay Pasi for the crime. It has next been submitted that the applicant is innocent with no criminal history. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2014 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.