High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mrityunjay Pathak v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6954 of 2006  RD-AH 8969 (4 May 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6954 of 2006
Mrityunjay Pathak Versus State of U.P.
Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala. J.
This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Mrityunjay Pathak arraigned in case Crime No. 107 of 2005 under sections 394, 302, 411 and 120-B, I.P.C., Police station Haldi, district Ballia.
Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA and have perused the record.
In the morning of December 18, 2005 an unknown person with gun shot head injury was seen lying and gasping for life by the side of chak road towards western side of village Jabahi Diyar, Police station Haldi, district Ballia. The information about him was given to the Police station Haldi by one Ajai Kumar. The injured person was identified as Munna Pathak alias Rakesh Kumar Pathak son of Prabhu Kumar Pathak resident of Niyazipur, Police station Semari district Buxur, State of Bihar. The injured succumbed to the injuries. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted on 19.12.2005.
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution case is dependent on circumstantial evidence and the only evidence against the applicant is of last seen in the company of the victim. The learned counsel submitted that there was no motive for the applicant for killing the victim.
The learned counsel for the complainant argued that co-accused Kashi Nath Pathak had enmity with the deceased. The learned counsel urged that a complaint was submitted to the police by the deceased on 30.7.2004 against Kashi Nath Pathak and others. The submission of the learned counsel was that the recovery of motorcycle of the deceased was made from the house of co-accused Bali Ram Dubey in pursuance of applicant's disclosure statement and at his pointing out. Another argument canvassed by the learned counsel was that the applicant is a resident of district Buxur, State of Bihar and he would not be available for trial after his release on bail. The learned counsel argued that after killing of victim no male member is left in her family and there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence by terrorizing the female witnesses. The argument of the learned counsel was that the widow and mother of the deceased apprehend danger to their lives from the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the absconding accused is threatening the wife and mother of the deceased.
I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
There is circumstantial evidence of last seeing the victim in the company of the applicant and co-accused Bali Ram Dubey at about 2 p.m. on December 17, 2005. The victim was again seen in the company of the applicant and co-accused at about 5 p.m. on 17.12.2005 by another witness. The applicant and co-accused went to hire the jeep on 17.12.2005 in between 12.30 - 12.45 p.m. The applicant and co-accused were seen going on motorcycle at about 1.00 p.m. towards Bhojpur side. The discovery of victim's motorcycle was made from the house of co-accused Bali Ram Dubey in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the applicant and at his pointing out. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
The bail application of the applicant Mrityunjay Pathak is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.