PUNIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Submission is that F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged by the wife of the deceased against as many as 10 known and 4-5 unknown persons, in which the name of the applicant is not included. Further submission is that statement of the informant, Ikraman was recorded on 29.09.2015 and 13.10.2015 and in the said statement also she did not disclose the name of applicant as assailant and even Shahista, daughter of deceased, also did not disclose his name in her first statement recorded on 13.10.2015. She has disclosed the name of applicant subsequently in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been recorded after 68 days of the alleged incident. Further submission is that general allegation of assault has been made against all persons named in the F.I.R., no specific role has been assigned to applicant. Further submission is that nothing incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant. Applicant has no other criminal history to his credit nor there is possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12015 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.