High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141557 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51620 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.57 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli. 5. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32499 of 2021. 6. On 24.3.2025 considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order of the said date, an affidavit was called for from the State. 7. Learned State counsel has filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.4.2025 in compliance of the order dated 24.3.2025, which is on the record. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not intend to file any response to the same. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no recovery memo has been drawn regarding recovery of dead body of the deceased and as such the fact that the dead body was recovered on the pointing out of the accused/applicant is not borne out by the recovery memo. It is further submitted that the fact then remains that there is no credible evidence of the fact that dead body was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. It is submitted that thus the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted while placing Annexure No. S.C.A.-1 to the short counter affidavit that reading of the said recovery memo annexed therein would go to show that dead body was recovered along with blood stained mud and plain mud. It is submitted that even inquest conducted on the body of the deceased goes to show that the dead body was recovered from the field of which a site plan was prepared, the said inquest memo has been placed before the Court which is at page-36 of the paper book and the site plan of the said recovery has also been placed before the Court which is at page-39 of the paper book. It is submitted that thus the fact that there is no credible evidence regarding recovery of dead body on the pointing out of the applicant, is incorrect. It is submitted further that the said fact is a matter of trial inasmuch as the trial is under progress and as many as 10 witnesses have been examined and the trial is at the stage of defense evidence. It is submitted that granting bail at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial and more so at an advance stage of trial grant of bail may not be in the fitness of things. 11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2021. The same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Dhuriya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0057 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially a missing report was lodged on 30.01.2021 regarding the missing of Mustafa, the father of the first informant. Subsequently the first information report was lodged on 01.02.2021 at 20:47 hours. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 01.02.2021 which started from 21:15 hours and concluded on 10:15 PM. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 01.02.2021 which started at 11:35 PM and concluded on 02.02.2021 at 3 PM wherein time since death was opined as 11/2 to 2 days. Learned counsel argued that the applicant happens to be the servant of co-accused Vijay Pal. It is argued that the only allegation against the applicant in the first information report is on the basis of some CCTV footage and it is stated that the deceased was seen with co-accused Vijay Pal on a motorcycle which was being driven by the applicant on 01.02.2021 and later on at about 1 PM, the police informed the first informant that the dead body of Mustafa is lying in the jungle and they have sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Learned counsel has argued that subsequently the police shows that the dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant on 01.02.2021 at 20:15 hours. It is argued that the entire police papers are anti- time documents and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the first information report has been lodged against Vijay Pal, Ravi (the applicant), Satpal @ Mukhia and Sanjay in which the motive has been assigned to co-accused Satapl @ Mukhia and Sanjay of pressurizing the deceased for selling his house to them and leave the place and going away failing which, he would be murdered. It is argued that the police has submitted charge-sheet against co- accused Vijay Pal and the applicant only but has exonerated Satapl @ Mukhia and Sanjay. It is further argued that there is recovery of a country-made pistol shown on the pointing out of the applicant on the next day of his arrest which is a false and planted recovery without any public and independent witness. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 01.02.2021. Per contra, learned learned counsel for the first informant and A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of driving the motorcycle on which the deceased along with co-accused Vijay Pal is said to be travelling after which he was found dead. It is further argued that the dead body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and also there is recovery of a country-made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant. Learned counsels have further argued that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV footage which is in the case diary and even in the charge-sheet which is part of the investigation. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. He is alleged to be driving the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling along with co-accused after which he was found dead. The dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and there is also recovery of a country-made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant. The deceased as per the postmortem examination report has died because of the gun shot injuries and two bullets were recovered from his body. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected." 12. The trial is at the stage of defense evidence. The documents annexed with short counter affidavit go to show that dead body was recovered and there is reference of its recovery in the same documents. Further the fact regarding recovery memo being prepared and the same being recovered on the pointing out of the applicant is a matter of trial. 13. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 14. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad