PRAHLAD YADAV 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.385 of 2008, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt, District Lucknow. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that initially his complicity was based on his own confessional statement made to the police which has no significance unless it is corroborated by some reliable substantive evidence. According to the prosecution case the applicant and his four companions conjointly committed the murder but one of the co-accused Harikesh has already been enlarged on bail by the court of Sessions. His bail application has however been rejected mainly on the ground that the main motive against him. According to the prosecution, the deceased was having illicit relation with the wife of this applicant. From the other side it is pointed out that two witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. In reply to this, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident is of 27.06.2008 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 03.09.2008. Out of the two so- called witnesses, statement of one witness Rajesh was recorded on 13.09.2008 in which he only stated to have seen the kidnappers and the vehicle but he could not identify the kidnappers nor could give the vehicle number. After a gap of about two months the statement was again recorded on 15.11.2008 showing his complicity. The accused was already arrested on 19.09.2008 in a case of an alleged attempt on police party and his confessional statement was recorded showing his complicity in this case. Similar story was got incorporated in the subsequent statement of Rajesh recorded after a gap of about two months. Similar statement of witness Sunil was also recorded. It is emphasized that these statements were recorded after the arrest of the applicants and that too after a long gap of about two months and therefore have no significance. But the learned court below rejected his bail application apparently on the ground that the main motive against the deceased was related with the applicant. It is said that merely on the ground of alleged motive nobody can be prosecuted. He is said to be in jail from 19.09.2008. Admittedly 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 submissions made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Prahlad Yadav) 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.