Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Surendra Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record. Applicant-Anuj Kumar seeks bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. The applicant along with other three co-accused persons were assigned omnibus role of danda and farsa causing death of two persons, namely, Smt. Devanti and her son Suresh. He further argued that there being material contradiction between the FIR the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecution case becomes wholly unreliable. The name of another co-accused Ravi @ Nikku was introduced during course of investigation and he has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 6.7.2011. He further pointed out that the FIR lodged after much delay i.e. on 6.3.2011 at about 8.05 am while the incident took place on 5.3.2011 at about 9 pm. and there is no proper explanation for this inordinate delay. He next argued that the applicant is in jail since 13.3.2011 and the trial has not commenced which is likely to consume some time, thus he deserves to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed this bail application and contended that in case the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tampering the remaining prosecution witnesses.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

This is a case of macabre and gory murder of two persons which was witnessed by the informant and Harish Kumar. They are the natural witnesses of the incident. Specific role has been assigned to the applicant along with other co-accused persons. The medical reports are not at a variance with the prosecution version. The co-accused Ravi @ Nikku has been granted bail for the reason that his role was distinguishable. The case of the applicant is not, therefore, at par with him, and parity, therefore, cannot be claimed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasons to release the applicant on bail. The prayer for bail is declined and the application is, accordingly rejected, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.