KARUNA SHANKER 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.1949 of 2008, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur. As against the complicity of the applicant and genuineness of the prosecution case it is submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain. It is also contended that after the body of the deceased was found hanging an information was given to the police station on 01.11.2008 but no suspicion whatsoever was expressed on anybody. Then after a gap of about five days I.e 06.11.2008 an application was given by the father of the deceased addressed to the Circle Officer, Sitapur saying that the applicant along with his two companions namely Uttma and Chandra Prakash (both non-applicants) had come to call his son. Then they took away him with them and thereafter killed hanged him by a Neem tree. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 07.11.2008 it was told that some verbal dual and an altercation had taken place between the deceased and the accused persons on some matter on 31.10.2008. It is argued that if an altercation had preceded then there is no question of applicant coming with his two companions and taking away the deceased with them. It is further submitted that the complicity of the applicant is said to be based on an extra judicial confession which is said to had been made on 08.11.2008 i.e. after a gap of about eight days of the said incident which has no significance unless it is corroborated by credible substantive statement. He is said to be in jail from 08.11.2008 i.e. for the last more then five months. It is claimed that there is no criminal history against him and this averment has not been controverted. 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 having regard to the discussion made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Karuna Shanker) 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.