NARENDRA KUMAR 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.164 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that in the F.I.R. lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased it has been said that the applicant was real nephew who wanted 2.5 bighas of land belonging to the deceased to be given to him and when the deceased refused it he committed the murder. According to the prosecution one knife was also recovered at his pointing out after three days. It is submitted that the applicant is not real nephew of the deceased. He is from another branch of that family. On the other hand there is one son of the real sister of the deceased namely Sarvesh who is alive. He being an heir of the deceased after his death would inherited the property. The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary from any angle, it is submitted. It is emphasized that these averments have not been denied in the counter affidavit. The word real has been intentionally omitted before writing the word nephew in the relevant paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Similarly the averments regarding one Sarvesh being son of real sister and legal heir has not been denied at all in the relevant paragraph. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged after the recovery of the dead body. The prosecution claims only one direct witness who happens to be brother of the first informant. But he has come out to tell about it after a gap of about two days on the usual excuse of alleged fear, it is submitted. He is said to be in jail for the last about one years. 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 and discussions made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Narendra Kumar) 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.