SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.62 of 2009, under Sections 147, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sareni, District Rae Bareli. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence, it is submitted that there is no direct evidence. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence of last seen which does not constitute a complete chain. Learned counsel for the applicant draws the attention of the Court towards the post mortem report wherein age of the deceased is mentioned as 25-30 years whereas the age of the deceased as mentioned in Annexure-7 prepared by the police is 18-19 years. The incident is said to be of 11.01.2009 and the post mortem was conducted on 16.01.2009 i.e. after 5-6 days and the probable time of death mentioned in the post mortem report is about a week. It is said that probably some other unclaimed body was found by the police upon which the post mortem was got conducted and the alleged time of occurrence is also non in-consonance with the approximate period mentioned in the post mortem report. He is said to be in jail from 18.01.2009. In the absence of any instruction learned A.G.A. is not able as to whether or not there is any criminal history against the applicant. 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 fact that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain and also keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Santosh Kumar Yadav) 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.