Kasim vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—This bail application has been filed by Kasim under Section 439 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking his release in crime No. 158 of 2004, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. His prayer for bail has already been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad vide his order dated 82 2005 (Annexure No. 14).

In short, the prosecution allegations against the applicant are that Afjal son of Mohammad Umar @ Munna Khan (deceased) the real brother of Mohammad Badar Khan (informant) was originally resident of Avas Vikas Colony, Shikohabad and was a labourer. Mubin had come to his house alongwith Sheetal Khan. On 362004, Badar Khan received the message regarding the elopement of his brother Afjal. On enquiry being made by him from Mubin Khan both of them reached the house of Karishma, which was locked. When the informant reached the house of Karishma she and her husband Kasim Khan were not present. The informant showed his apprehension that Karishma and her husband Kasim Khan (present applicant) had murdered his brother and had concealed his deadbody that the informant scribed the F.I.R. and lodged it at police station Ramgarh on 462004 at 5.30 p.m. as crime No. 158 of 2004, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 162004 and according to the version in the F.I.R., the deceased was a labourer and was living at Nai Abadi P.S. Ramgarh. The police started the investigation and during investigation it transpired that Kasim and Karishma were the tenant of one Kaish and since last two days the couple was not traced out and the house was locked. The I.O. with the help of other people Afjal Hassan, Amit Kumar Yadav, Shakil and the informant forcibly got the locked open and searched the house. Behind the bathroom and latrine a body of a person was discovered after digging the soil which was identified to be that of the deceased. The body was recovered and the recovery memo was prepared and the inquest was conducted. The I.O. also prepared the site plan and made an inspection note. The informant is a witness of inquest. The autopsy report dated 562004 (Annexure No. 6) indicate that the deceased had a legature mark and a lacerated wound as well as strangulation mark and the cause of his death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

On these facts the applicant has applied for his bail after the same was rejected by the Lower Court.

I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma learned Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. at a great length and have gone through the record.

In this case the deadbody of the deceased has been recovered from the portion of the house under the tenancy of the present applicant. The body was eschewed from near the bathroom and latrine. There is no satisfactory explanation coming forth from the side of the applicant for the said recovery and concealment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was never a tenant in the said house. At this stage it couldn''t be gone into. There is no reason for his false implication. The bail prayer is declined. The bail application is rejected.

Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same if possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of production of certified copy of this order is produced before it.