ANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on merits. The learned counsel for the applicant Sri Girish Chandra Saxena contended that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. He referred to the F. I. R. according to which Pharsa was used by the applicant in commission of the murder. Chick report was prepared on the basis of the written report. The applicant has an nexed copy of the chick report. On the title page the Head Constable Clerk has writ ten that the accused had committed mur der of Mahipal by assaulting with Tabal. The learned counsel that this discrepancy has occurred as the written report was lodged much after the preparation of the chick report. He also pointed out that discrepancy in the distance of the place of occurrence from the police station. In the chick report the distance shown was 5 kilometres while in the inquest report the distance written was 8 kilometres and by overwriting changed to 9 kilometres. He also pointed out overwriting in the time incorporated in the inquest report. He further contended that the prosecution could not indicate any motive and it is highly doubtful that the murder would be committed to take revenge of murder which had taken place twenty-seven years before, while the applicant was a child of hardly one year. He contended that the deceased has no field near the place of occurrence and the prosecution story stands falsified as according to the first information report the deceased was going to see his field when the incident occurred. He further contended that the house of the witnesses cited in the first information report have not been shown in the site plan and the villagers who had their houses adjacent to the place of occurrence did not support the prosecution case when inter rogated under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. He further pointed out that the witnesses Surendra and Behari who were named in the first information report have not supported the prosecution case regarding time in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer.

(2.) THE learned Additional Govern ment Advocate contended that these al leged discrepancies cannot be considered while disposing of the bail as the meticulous examination of the prosecu tion evidence is not permissible. He fur ther contended that as these pleas were open while the first bail application was disposed and, therefore, no argument in this regard can be advanced, he contended that the second bail application can be entertained only on fresh materials which were not available at the time of the dis posal of the first bail application.

(3.) ON consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I find that the applicant is not entitled to bail. However, the trial may be expedited. Bail application rejected. .