Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—This bail application has been filed by the real sibling Dinesh Kumar, who is an accused in Crime No. 15 of 2005, u/s 302, I.P.C., P.S. Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar for committing the murder of his real brother Asharfi Lal.

The prosecution allegations against the applicant is that on the intervening night between 30/31.5.2005 at 11.30 p.m., when the informant alongwith his elder brother Kanhaiya Lal, mother Smt. Rama Devi, uncle Babu Ram and other family members were lying on the platform out since their house, then that day on 31.5.2005 at 1.30 p.m. uncle of the informant Dinesh Kumar (the present applicant) shot dead his father. Asharfi Lal who was his real brother motivated by the fact that the deceased used to object the assault by the present applicant on his wife. The applicant and other witness had seen the incident. The informant Vijay Pal scribed the F.I.R. relating to the incident, covered the distance of seven kilometers and lodged it at Police Station Narwal, district Kanpur Nagar as Crime No. 15 of 2005 u/s 302, I.P.C.

The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 31.5.2005 at 7.00 a.m. and the post mortem was performed on the same day at 12.00 p.m. On the aforesaid factual matrix since the applicant failed to get released on bail from the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, he has approached this Court for his release on bail through the present application.

I have heard Sri Shamsher Singh advocate in support of this bail application and learned A.G.A. in opposition at a great length and have gone through the record of this application.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that it is a night incident and it is a case of hit and run. He further submitted that the stomach contents of the deceased does not indicate that the incident had taken place at 1.30 in the night. He further contended that the mother of the application and the deceased had filed an affidavit before the Fast Track Court, No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 738 of 2005, State v. Dinesh Kumar, relating to the said crime that the applicant is innocent. He further contended that the applicant is in jail since last one year and the trial is not in progress. He also argued that in the dead hour of night the witnesses cannot see the assailant and only to grab the property of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time when the inquest was conducted. In the end he submitted that for the above reasons the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that the applicant is the real brother of the deceased and the F.I.R. has been lodged by his real nephew who had no reason to falsely implicate him if the applicant was not the real assailant. He also contended that the applicant had got motive to commit the murder of the deceased and he had got a criminal history as well. He is involved in Crime No. 221 of 1999 under Sections 324 and 504, I.P.C. He further submitted that there is also the evidence on record against the applicant given by Vinod Kashyap who had seen the present applicant running in the field soon after committing the crime. He further contended that since the applicant had a suspicion that the deceased had an illicit relation with his wife that is why he had committed his murder.

I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. In my view there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and there are several eye-witnesses account of close relatives of the applicant against him that he is the sole accused and is the main shooter. There is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecution side had done anything against the applicant prior to the present incident so as even to suppose his false implication in the crime. There is no reason to grant bail to the applicant. His bail prayer is declined. The present bail application is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same if possible within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, since the applicant is in jail since 1.7.2005 for more than year. Office of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court within a period of three days from today.