SUBEDAR @ SUBEDAR HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution story, police has named 53 persons and 200 unnamed persons for an occurrence of brick-batting in which applicant was also said to be involved and the Station House Officer and Constables were maintaining law & order in the area with regard to murder of Neeraj. It is thus, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive and that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history prior to lodging of the present case. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 29.09.2015. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the similarly situated co-accused namely, Monu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34952 of 2015, copy of which order is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.