RAM JEEVAN 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.2907 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur, District Kheri. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted though the incident is said to has taken place in day-light and it is claimed that two witnesses have seen the incident but the report was lodged by the son of the deceased against unknown persons. It is further pointed out that in the F.I.R. it is specifically mentioned that his father had received two gun shot injuries on his head but in the post mortem report only incised wound was found. According to the prosecution story, the deceased had made certain objectionable actions towards the wife of co-accused Santosh (non-applicant) who happens to be brother-in-law of the applicant Ram Jeevan. Therefore, they had developed grudge against the deceased. Thus, in respect of alleged murder the report has been lodged by the elder son against unknown persons but now the younger son (applicant) along with his brother-in-law (Sala) have been made accused. Besides one person of the village namely Dore alias Guudu was also implicated, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 16.04.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2474 (B) of 2009. The two witnesses have given general statements to have witnessed the killing but it has not been specified as to what was the alleged manner of killing, it is submitted. The witnesses have also claimed to have seen the accused persons dragging the deceased in the cane field. But out of fear neither of them could make any effort to either save the deceased or to raise alarm. One of the witnesses namely Bhailu @ Shiv Shanker has, however, towards the fag end of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically stated that it was co-accused Santosh (non-applicant) who had an axe in his hand and it was he who was inflicting injuries to the deceased. It is also submitted that otherwise also he could have been the aggrieved person because his wife was allegedly teased by the deceased. It is further submitted that as far as the applicant is concerned he happens to be younger son of the deceased and by any stretch of imagination he could not have involved himself in the alleged manner. Therefore it is submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable. There is no criminal history against him, it is claimed. He is said to be in jail from August, 2008. However, the bail is 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 discussion made hereinabove and also the fact that the case of the applicant appears to be distinguishable, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Ram Jeevan) 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.