LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-417

MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On May 18, 2009
MUNNA LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is 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.5664 of 2008, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur, District Kheri. It is submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence particularly of last seen which does not constitute a complete chain. It is also submitted that if the prosecution story regarding first part of the incident of slapping the deceased by the co-accused Ashok Kumar is correct, then why at all the deceased would go after 15 days with the same person along with his companions. The report of this case was lodged after recovery of the dead body in the well near the house of co-accused Suresh (non-applicant). He is said to be in jail from 02.01.2009. It is claimed in para 16 that there is no criminal history against him. The co-accused Ashok Kumar having similar allegation against him, has already been enlarged on bail. It is said that the case of this applicant stands on a better footing because the aforesaid slapping was done by co-accused Ashok Kumar and not the applicant. 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 that case of the applicant stands on a better footing than co- accused Ashok Kumar, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Munna Lal) 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.