RAM PRAKASH UPADHYAY 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.1068 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that initially a report was lodged by the wife of the deceased on 17.10.2008 saying that after taking meals her husband had gone to sleep in the tubewell room but unfortunately caught electric shock and died. It is said that on that basis an amount of rupees one lac was also received under Kisan Accidental Bima Yojana vide cheque dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure 5-A). Meanwhile after about 19 days of the lodging of the F.I.R. the wife of the deceased came out with a different story in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. saying that her daughter-in-law had gone to ease out in the midnight due to bad stomach and then some noise was heard. They saw that the applicant and his companions (who are on inimical terms) were fleeing away from the place of occurrence. They had also threatened them with dire consequences due to which she could not muster courage to come out and tell the actual incident. Her son lives in Bombay to earn his livelihood. When he came back then only these facts were brought to the notice of the police. Similar statement has been given under Section 161 by her daughter-in-law (Annexure-7). But two villagers namely Seshmani Upadhyay and Janki Yadav have denied to have seen any occurrence. In fact Janki Yadav told that the burnt dead body of the deceased was taken out from the tubewell room. He is said to be in jail from 20.12.2008. 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 submission made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Ram Prakash Upadhyay) 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.