Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHUTOSH ALIAS ASHU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashutosh Alias Ashu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2795 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12894 (26 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2795 of 2007

Ashutosh alias Ashu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

***

Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J

This is a second bail application. The first bail application having been rejected on 25.9.2006.

Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Manish Tiwari has urged that the material which has been brought on record including the deposition of the injured and also that of Rajesh Singh coupled with the evidence pertaining to the travel ticket and the discrepancies in respect thereof, it can now be safely said that the entire prosecution theory with regard to the scene of occurrence stands demolished. He further contends that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and the doubt as to why the injured or informant did not name the applicant, has not been cleared by the prosecution, as such, in this situation the applicant is entitled for bail. He has vehemently argued that with the documents which have been retrieved from the railways pertaining to the seating arrangement of the injured would indicate that the prosecution has been time and again attempting to modify the version and which is also evident from the amendments  brought in the charges that have been framed against the applicant. He contends that this procedure, therefore, is absolutely unfair to some how the other help the prosecution in creating evidence and which is belied by their own documents. He has argued that it is not understood as to why the Investigating Officer did not choose to record the statement of any of the co-passengers who had allegedly helped the injured at the time of the incident and could have been possible witnesses in respect thereof.

Replying to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, learned A.G.A. Sri Surendra Bahadur Singh has urged that the alleged discrepancies sought to be pointed out in the railway documents do not in any way dilute the probability of the occurrence of the crime inside a running train. He contends that the occurrence is clearly corroborated by the investigation memos which clearly record that the injured had been taken out from an AC III Tier coach and the blanket and the bed-sheet with Acid Stains was also recovered from the railway coach where the injured was seated. He further contends that the applicant on account of the circumstances as brought on record with regard to his alleged acquaintance with the injured prior to her marriage clearly indicate that the applicant had been stalking the injured and had followed her during the journey when the incident occurred. He has further urged that almost all the witnesses had been examined barring one or two and the trial has already proceeded, as such, it will not be in the interest of justice to bail out the applicant at this stage.

Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant, while advancing his submissions, has urged that the accused applicant  has also sustained injuries which according to him were caused by the Acid thrown by the applicant and about which there is no explanation by the accused. He has further submitted that during the investigation, the mobile calls stated to have been made by the applicant and received by him in the mobile which was recovered from the applicant clearly indicate that the applicant was very much present during the journey and had been following the injured victim. His presence in Agra at the time of arrest is yet another circumstance which establishes his prima facie guilt. The argument advanced by the learned A.G.A. has also been adopted by the learned counsel for the complainant and it has been urged that there is absolutely no new material which may warrant the grant of bail to the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, I find that the earlier bail application had been rejected after considering almost all of the arguments that have been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant today. However, learned counsel for the applicant has been able to create some doubt with regard to the seating arrangement and the documents which have been obtained by the applicant from the railways. This aspect , however, is subject matter of evidence but the same at this stage cannot conclusively establish that the incident had not taken place in the train at all. The reason for this is that the victim is reported to have been brought down from the train by G.R.P. constables and then sent to the hospital on the date of the incident itself. In such a situation, where there is some other corroborative evidence available on the record, it would not be safe to give an opinion on the merits of this evidence at the stage of bail. So far as the deposition of the victim and one of the witnesses Rajesh Singh is concerned, it cannot be said that there is any substantial variance which would lead to any doubt about the naming of the applicant as an accused. This aspect again is to be sorted out at the trial and the submissions raised in this regard do not create a situation for accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. The non recording of statements of co-passengers does not in any way demolish the evidence that has already been  collected. Apart from this, there is nothing at least at this stage to assume that there was some other person who might have committed this offence.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having assessed the arguments advanced, I do not find any change in the circumstances so as to grant bail to the applicant when most of the witnesses have already been examined.

However, keeping in view the fact of the length of detention of the applicant, it is desirable that the trial should proceed and be concluded expeditiously, if possible preferably within a period of 6 months.

The bail application is rejected.

D/- 24.7.2007

2795/07/ias


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.