Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Anil v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5440 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7478 (14 December 2005)


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).


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.  

 Dt. 14.12.2005.



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


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 |

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