SUSHIL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY 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.680 of 2008, under Sections 304, 328 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur. As against the complicity of the applicant and genuineness of the prosecution case it is submitted that according to the prosecution story the wife of the deceased got an entry in the general diary to the effect that her husband was in the habit of consuming liquor and on 11.04.2008 he had left the house but did not come back. Then she was told by one Sushil of the village that his dead body was lying in an agricultural field. Then she lodged the report. After about six months the statement of the wife was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she did not say anything against the applicant. Surprisingly one of the told in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which too was recorded after a long gap of about six months that he had seen the deceased lastly in the company of the applicant and other co- accused consuming liquor. There is no connecting evidence thereafter. It is said that the entire circumstantial evidence is of fragile nature which does not constitute a complete chain and co-accused Dodhey Awasthi having similar allegation against him, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-5). It is claimed that there is no criminal history against the applicant. He is said to be in jail from 18.10.2008. However, the bail is 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 (Sushil Shukla) 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.