SURESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEWLY engaged counsel Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra says that he is filing vakalatnama today in view of the new rules of the Court according to which if the counsel engaged is from outside then engagement of a local counsel is must. He says that in this case Sri H.N. Pandey and Mr. Daaga have been engaged who are practising at Allahabad. Counter 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 complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the incident is said to have taken place at 11:00 p.m. in the night near brick kiln where it is said that on the alarm raised by the victim, his brother, Jai Singh, who is said to had been sleeping in that brick kiln (a chance witness) reached on the spot along with one Anirudh Singh and they witnesses the occurrence. Further the following submissions are made:-- As would be apparent from the perusal of the F.I.R. no source of light has been disclosed; the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about nine hours, according to the version of F.I.R. the assailants were having lathi, axe and Banka but in the post mortem report injury no. 3 is an oval shape entry wound and in the last it is also mentioned that two numbers of bullets were also recovered, but there is no explanation of this injury:- the deceased had a criminal history and it appears that he was killed by his enemies in the dark hours of the night. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand points out that in the statement of witness Jai Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has come that one Krishna Kumar had fired. In reply to this learned counsel for the applicant points out that this statement was recorded after the inquest and post mortem reports and had it been true, he would have mentioned it earlier because he happens to be one of the witnesses of the inquest report. The applicant is in jail from 17.12.2008. In para 26 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, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail on heavy sureties and on some condition. Let the applicant (Suresh) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.40,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned. It is further provided that if the applicant does not cooperate with the trial or absents himself without any sufficient cause the court below can cancel his bail.