PYARE LAL SAINI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Daga, who has filed Vakalatnama for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the co-accused persons have already been bailed out on merit. There is no evidence against the applicant except that the deceased was lastly seen with the applicant and other accused persons and his dead body was recovered at the instance of the applicant and other accused from the compound of the applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant is suffering from a serious kidney problem and undergoing treatment since long due to which his condition has deteriorated. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of the applicant, which caused annoyance to the applicant. It was he who took active part in not only making ill design of the murder of the deceased but also took assistance of other accused persons. He had deceitfully called the deceased in his house and killed him with the help of other accused persons and buried his dead body inside the campus of his own house, which was recovered at his instance and also at the instance of other accused persons. The place where the dead body had been buried was enclosed with wall and there was no access of outsider. There was adequate evidence against the applicant. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Popat Vetal and another (2004) 7 SCC 521 the Apex Court held in para 6 and 7 as follows: "6.There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are: 1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(2.) REASONABLE apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.