RAKESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REJOINDER affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.1242 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence it is submitted that the incident did not take place in the alleged manner. According to the prosecution story at 11:00 p.m. in the night near a brick kiln the victim was being assaulted. On his raising alarm his brother Jai Singh, who is said to had been sleeping in the same brick kiln (a chance witness) reached on the spot and witnessed the occurrence. It is said that no source of light has been disclosed in the F.I.R. and it was lodged after a delay of about nine hours. Further according to the version of F.I.R. the assailants were having lathi, axe and Banka but in the post mortem report an oval shape entry wound has been found and in the last it is also mentioned that two numbers of bullets were also recovered. But there is no explanation of this injury. It is true that in the statement of Jai Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has come that one Krishna Kumar had fired and it is rightly pointed out that this statement was recorded after the inquest and post mortem reports. Had it been really true, it would have been mentioned earlier because he happens to be one of the witnesses of the inquest report. Lastly it is said that co-accused Suresh and Manish having similar allegations against them, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. (copies of those bail orders have been placed on record). The applicant is in jail from 17.12.2008. It is claimed that there is no criminal history against him. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Rakesh) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.