PARASNATH 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.690 of 2008, under Sections 147, 201, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bazar Shukul, District Sultanpur. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence, it is submitted that the only evidence of last seen is that witness Anil Kumar had seen the applicant and some other accused persons going to the house of co-accused Bhagwan Das (non-applicant). Then he came to know that the deceased Brijesh Mishra is missing and the dead body was recovered from the house of the aforesaid Bhagwan Das (non-applicant). Then the witness got suspicious that the applicant may be involved in the killing. Another witness Sudhir Kumar Mishra has stated that there was some intimate relationship between the deceased and the wife of Bhagwan Das. It is said that the applicant is not related with Bhagwan Das. He is simply a co-villager. Otherwise also it is said that the only role attributed to him is that of catching hold (tying legs). The main role of inflicting injury by iron phukni has been assigned to Bhagwan Das (non-applicant). It is also said that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain. Lastly it is brought to the notice of the Court that co- accused Ram Deo Yadav who was having almost similar role (tying the hands of the deceased) has already been enlarged on bail vide this Court's order dated 07.04.2009 (Annexure F of the supplementary affidavit). It is said that his case is also distinguishable and he is also entitled to get bail on the ground of parity itself. It is also claimed that there is no criminal history against him. He is said to be in jail from 31.08.2008. 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 and also the fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Parasnath) 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.