High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anil v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5440 of 2005  RD-AH 7478 (14 December 2005)
Court No. 19
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5440 of 2005
Anil .....Vs.....State of U.P.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record.
The applicant Anil involved in case crime No. 130 of 2004, for the offence under Sections 302,201 I.P.C. and under 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, Police Station Charthawal, district Muzaffar Nagar.
It is alleged that a report was lodged on 13.9.2004 at 5.30 p.m. by brother of the deceased to the effect that his sister Babita ( deceased) was married to Anil (applicant) about 15 years ago. Out of the wed lock Jyoti aged about 13 years and Vishal aged about 1 year were born. About 3 months before the incident Anil (applicant) wanted to marry his daughter Km. Jyoti with one Ashok who was quite aged. The victim and her daughter Km. Jyoti opposed it. About 2 months before, the complainant had gone to Kasauli but he did not find her there. When he enquired from Anil (applicant) he told that she has gone to the relative's place. He was not permitted to meet Km. Jyoti. The complainant got suspicious and tried to make thorough search of her sister. On 12.9.2004 he again come to village Kasauli. His sister's daughter is nice Km. Jyoti told him that Anil (applicant) had gone to take medicine along with mother and younger brother Vishal. In the night when Anil (applicant) and his brother Kallu came bake then she (Km. Jyoti) enquired about her mother and she was told that mother and younger brother have been killed and their bodies have been thrown in the junglel. She was also forcibly married with Ashok. Thereafter Anil ( applicant) also told to the complainant that with the help of Kallu he has killed Babita and Vishal and has thrown their bodies in the jungle. On 14.9.2004 at the pointing out of Anil (applicant) two skeletons were recovered by the police and sent to the Agra Forensic Science Laboratory for report. But on an objection raised by Forensic Science Laboratory Agra the skeletons were sent Forensic Laboratories, Lucknow for examination. On 6.6.2005 the report of the Medical Board constituted by the C.M.O. was received to the effect that 4 long bones ( 2 Tibia , 1 Feemur and 1 Fibula ) appear to be of lady skeleton whereas in respect of two others bones (rib bone and one scapula bone) nothing can be said as to whether these bones are of male or female. Moreover any opinion regarding age of skeletons or about their murder could not be given.
As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and the supporting evidence it is argued that both the skeletons and bones allegedly recovered at the pointing out of the applicant were returned by Agra Forensic Science Laboratory with the objection that the alleged skeletons are not medicable . It has not been denied in the counter affidavit. But in para 8 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that those skeletons were sent to Forensic Laboratories, Lucknow for their examination and report is still awaited. During the course of arguments it is brought to the notice of the Court that even after seeking 4-5 adjournments this report could not be filed by the prosecution side. From the record it also appears that probably after receiving back those alleged skeletons from Lucknow Laboratory. The same were referred to the Medical Board through C.M.O., Muzaffarnagar where from a report dated 6.6.2005 has been received as mentioned in para 3 hereinbefore. In view of this it is argued that both skeleton were not medicable and there is no authentic report on record to the effect that both skeletons were human skeletons and the same could have been of the victims. It is also emphasized that in para 15 it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant's wife Smt. Babita alongwith Vishal (both victims) went to her parental house in June 2004 and since then she has not returned back. Km. Jyoti is still living with the first informant ( maternal uncle) and she is under his pressure and giving the statement against the applicant and other co-accused. In reply to this in para 14 of the counter affidavit no specific denial has been made. Besides it has been admitted that Km. Jyoti resides in her Nanihal. It is further pointed out in para 16 it has been specifically mentioned that applicant was doing private service in Panipat, Hariyana and at the time of the alleged incident he was also working there. In reply to this paragraph although a denial has been made but there is nothing to indicate about any evidence that the applicant was not serving at Panipat at the alleged time of incident and that he participated in the alleged crime. In view of this it is argued that the applicant's wife Babita and son Vishal both disappeared from there paternal house and did not return back, that is why applicant's brother-in-law lodged the report after 3 months of the alleged incident. It is argued that Km. Jyoti is under the influence of first informant (maternal uncle) as already argued. Her statement appears to be similar against the applicant as well as his brother Kallu (non applicant). It is pointed out that co-accused Kallu (non applicant) has already been enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 7.1.2005 (annexure-4). Therefore, the applicant should also be enlarged on bail. In the context of reasonable apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence it is pointed out that applicant has no criminal history against is credit.
The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. mainly on the basis of the statement of Km. Jyoti, in respect of which discussion has been made herein above.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.
In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration some of the arguments, advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of the points discussed herein above, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.