Amit Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another

Raj Beer Singh, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant involved in case crime No. 401/2019, under Sections 302, 307, 506 IPC, police station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide, order dated 08.12.2020 and after that statement of material witnesses have been recorded. In the first information report, there was no reference of any axe and that the version regarding causing injuries by axe has been developed later on. No description of injuries or weapon was mentioned in the inquest report. The medical evidence is not consistent with the statements of alleged eye-witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that in his statement before the trial court, P.W.1. Vinay Kumar Dhangarh has stated that he cannot tell as how much time has been passed after death of deceased. Referring to statement of P.W.2 Dr. K.N. Katiyar, it was stated that it is possible that deceased might have been died soon after the incident. Further, as per statement of P.W.2 Dr. K.N. Katiyar, the death of deceased might have taken place between 3.00 PM to 9.00 PM and thus, it was a blind murder, took place in the evening. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that in fact no one has witnessed the alleged incident and that alleged eye witnesses have been introduced later on. As per post-mortem report, blackening and charring was present at the body of deceased, which does not corroborates the version of alleged eye-witnesses. Alleged witness P.W.3 Anil Kumar has not sustained any pallet injury and that his presence at the spot is highly improbable. First information report is ante-timed. No motive has been shown on the part of applicant to commit murder of deceased. At the time of alleged incident, the gun of father of the applicant was lying deposited in the police station and thus, the recovery of gun is, thoroughly doubtful. Learned counsel for applicant has raised various points regarding factual positions of the case, as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, and it is submitted that there is no cogent evidence against applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2019, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is eye-witness account of the alleged incident. As per statements of eye-witnesses, specific role of causing injuries to deceased with 'Banka' has been attributed to applicant. All the contentions, raised by learned counsel for the applicant regarding factual positions of the case, have already been considered by this Court while deciding the first bail application of applicant. Learned counsel for informant has referred the statements of witnesses, examined before the trial court, and submitted that there is no material contradictions. The alleged inconsistencies pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant would not affect the prosecution version. It was also stated that a single sentence of cross examination of witness cannot be appreciated out of context without considering the effect and essence of entire statement of such witnesses. In this case there is eye-witness account that applicant has assaulted the deceased with 'Banka' and the said 'Banka' was recovered from applicant. It was stated that deceased was brutally murdered and he has sustained several injuries.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant, nature of accusation, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the second bail application of applicant is hereby rejected.

However, keeping in view of period of incarceration of applicant the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment