AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA.
Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.
Submission of learned Counsel for the applicants is that according to the FIR the applicants were not present on the date of occurrence i.e. on 10.4.2010 and the deceased was admitted in the Hospital. This fact has been established from the various statements i.e. statements of Nurse and Doctors which have been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. His further submission is that the presence of two accused personsapplicants does not appear to be correct on account of fact that the deceased was admitted in the Hospital and the statements of various persons, which are on record, go to indicate that the deceased was alive on 10.4.2010 when he was admitted in the Hosptial.
No doubt strangulation mark has been found in the post mortem report but the said injury goes to indicate that the story set up by the prosecution in the form of evidence and the statements of various persons on record goes to establish doubt in regard to the prosecution story. According to the prosecution case the applicants Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar accompanied the Ambulance by which the deadbody was taken to the Bulandshahr.
In absence of any overt act assigned to the applicants, the applicants have been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts, let applicants Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 3672 of 2010 under section 302, IPC of Police Station Kotwali District Unnao on their furnishing an adequate personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.