SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

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.439 of 2006, under Sections 394, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mitauli, District Kheri. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the it appears to be based solely on the alleged confessional statement of co-accused Sanjay Raidas from whose possession a Sim card and Rs.3000/- is said to have been recovered. He has already been enlarged on bail vide this Court's order dated 26.06.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3310 (B) of 2008. At the time of consideration of aforesaid bail it was brought to the notice of the Court that the identity of currency notes is doubtful and that he is not named in the F.I.R. and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Another co-accused Ram Jeevan has also been enlarged on bail vide (Annexure-3). According to the prosecution at his pointing out a sim card of the deceased was recovered from his house while considering his bail application it came to the notice of the Court that the prosecution version has not been supported by any witness. Another co-accused Kamlesh has also been enlarged on bail from whose possession Mobile phone belonging to the deceased was allegedly recovered. As against this applicant also there does not appear to be any evidence except the aforesaid confessional statement of co-accused Sanjay Raidas. Moreover it is also emphasized that he is not named in the F.I.R. and no identification whatsoever has been got conducted in this case. This averment has not been controverted by filing any counter affidavit. He is said to be in jail from 20.12.2006 i.e. for the last two and half years. It is said 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 fact that all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court and also the fact that he is not named in the F.I.R. and there does not appear to be any identification, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Sanjay Singh) 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.