AIJAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 855 of 2015, under Sections 364, 302, 120 -B, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

(2.) Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the only tangible evidence available against the applicant is that of the deceased having been abducted by the applicant with the aid of other co -accused persons and subsequently the dead body of the deceased is said to have been recovered. Further submission is that so far as the actual incident of murder is concerned, no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer as to who committed the murder of the deceased and how and under what circumstances, the same was committed. There is no witness of the actual occurrence of the murder. It was further submitted that no valid inference of murder can be legitimately drawn against the applicant and the maximum charge against the accused can be levelled under Section 364 I.P.C. Even this allegation of abduction is being denied by the applicant. It was also pointed out that when the first informant was examined by the Investigating Officer for the second time, he has denied his being the author of the F.I.R. and, therefore, the prosecution cannot draw any corroboration from such document which has been rendered an innocuous piece of paper having no bearing against the accused. Contention is that the alleged motive part of the evidence is also highly doubtful because the owner of the coaching centre has denied the factum of any dispute between the children in the coaching centre and the whole controversy involving the coaching centre has been said by owner of the coaching centre to be nothing except the conspiracy to defame the coaching centre. Submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances, the case against the applicant remained unproved, therefore, he should be released on bail.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of two witnesses Mantu and Deepak who, according to him, are independent witnesses having no grouse against the applicant. It has been stated by the witnesses that on