NARENDER 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.74 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow. It is submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain. Nobody has seen the occurrence. Merely on the ground of suspicion that the applicant had extra marital relations with the wife of the deceased, he has been implicated with his so-called companion, who has already been enlarged on bail. It is also pointed out that the report has been lodged after a long gap of about 20 days for which there is no plausible explanation. He is said to be in jail from 13.01.2009. It is claimed 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 the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which does not constitute a complete chain, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Narender 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.