LALLAN YADAV @ PAHALWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant by way of this application seeks his release on bail.

(2.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased in which the version was given out by him that the deceased had gone along with one Deepak on the motorcycle to the place of occurrence where he was done to death in a shoot out that took place there. Two accused persons namely Balindra Yadav and Munna Singh were named in the F.I.R. by name while it was alleged that three unknown assailants came over there with covered faces who started shooting at the deceased resulting in his death. Further submission is that this incident is said to have taken place on 12.3.2013 and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same very day. Thereafter, on 31.3.2013 the first informant was again examined by the police in which he disclosed the complicity of the applicant in the crime. Submission is that even in this version, it was not stated by the complainant that the aforesaid witness Deepak ever told him that the applicant is one of those shooters. Actually, the source of information on the basis of which suspicion on the applicant was placed was entirely different. It has further been pointed out that after a long gap of period that is to say on 15.7.2013, the aforesaid Deepak was examined by the police and at that belated stage, Deepak named the applicant as one of the shooters and claimed to have known the applicant from before. Submission is that if the applicant was known to the aforesaid witness Deepak then there is absolutely no explanation as to how and under what circumstances the applicant's name was not nominated in the F.I.R. and as to how and why his complicity did not surface for such a long drawn out period of time. Argument is that it is so obvious from the aforesaid circumstances that the introduction of the applicant in the case is nothing but a result of afterthought. Contention is that the belated introduction of the applicant's complicity in the crime without any adequate or acceptable explanation for the same detracts very substantially much of the credibility from the allegations and the evidence against applicant becomes highly suspicious in nature. Submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant's case becomes clearly distinguishable from the co-accused, who were nominated in the F.I.R. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 10.7.2015 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 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 have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.