RAM CHHAIL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Shanker, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A and perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that seven persons have been nominated in the F. I. R including the pres ent applicant. All the seven persons have been attributed the role to commit murder of the deceased by causing knives injuries. During the course of investigation, the statement of Smt. Santosh, wife of the de ceased, was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C wherein she has stated that de ceased was caught hold by co-accused per sons namely Azad, Roshan and Pappu who have been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that time of death of the de ceased has not been mentioned in the Form No. 13 at page No. 20 of the bail applica tion. The semi digested food were found in the stomach of the deceased. This shows that no blood was found at the place of oc currence which shows that he was mur dered out side the village by some other persons and there is no any eye evidence of this case. This incident has not been done in the village. It is further contended that C. M. Q has already been issued certificate in the year 2004. Therefore, the applicant is 45% disabled person. Therefore, he could not cause injury on the body of the de ceased. There is no criminal history against the present applicant.

(3.) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. There fore, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected. Application Rejected. .