SANJIV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) It is submitted that the only material against the applicant, is the last seen evidence of Kallu, who in his 1st statement, did not allege anything incriminating against the applicant, but in his subsequent statement, he alleges that he saw the applicant along with co-accused Laungshri and Pintu coming out of the jungle. It is further submitted that the aforesaid two co-accused persons, namely, Laungshri and Pintu were bailed out by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13940/2016 on 6.5.2016, even though the illicit relationship was alleged between Laungshri and the deceased. It is finally submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history,? trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, he be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.