SANU 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.1358 of 2008, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, I.P.C., Police Station Ram Kot, District Sitapur. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The dead body was found on 28.06.2008 but the report was lodged after a considerable delay on 05.07.2008 without any satisfactory and convincing explanation. At a late stage the statement of one Mohit was recorded to the effect that he had seen actual occurrence. But the role which he assigned to the applicant and co-accused Chhote Lal (non-applicant) is that of catching hold only. It is said that co- accused Chhote Lal has already been enlarged on bail and therefore this applicant should also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity itself. There is no quarrel on the point of role assigned to the applicant. The applicant is said to be in jail from 02.12.2008. It is claimed in para 17 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 and particularly having regard to the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Sanu) 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.