SALIK RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits filed today are 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.189 of 2008, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 404 I.P.C., Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh. As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence it is submitted that there is a simple F.I.R. in this case by the brother to the effect that the deceased brother had gone to Punjab to the place of his brother-in-law on 26.10.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. a phone call was received about his coming back to the home. Therefore on the next day i.e. 27.10.2008 few family members were sent to receive him at Gauriganj but till 10.00 p.m. when the deceased did not come and then they made a search and returned back empty handed. On the next day i.e. 28.10.2008 an information was received about lying a dead body. Thereafter about 12 days the police recorded the statement of this very informant who gave an all together different story to the effect that on 09.11.2008 he was told by Yaar Mohammad and Nami of the same village that in the midnight of 27/28th October, 2008 at about 8.00 p.m. the applicant and co-accused Mohan consumed liquor at the liquor shop and thereafter they went towards Gauriganj on the motorcycle of the applicant. Then again both of them saw at about 9.00 p.m. that the applicant and co-accused were coming along with the deceased sitting in between them on the same motorcycle. It is said that there was some enmity on account of some land between the applicant and co-accused on one side and the deceased on the other side. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that had it been so, there was no occasion for the deceased to had been sitting and going on the same motorcycle with their enemies i.e. the applicant and co-accused. Otherwise also if they were really seen i.e. the witnesses who belong to the same village should have openly come out at least immediately after 28.10.2008 when the dead body was found. But they allegedly came out to tell about it after a long gap of about 11 days i.e. on 09.11.2008. It is said that there is no other evidence against the applicant. He is said to be in jail from 13.11.2008. It is claimed that there is no criminal history against him and this averment has not been denied by filing any counter affidavit. 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 the case is based on circumstantial evidence of fragile nature which does not constitute a complete chain, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Salik Ram) 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.