High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raju v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5470 of 2006  RD-AH 10011 (22 May 2006)
Court No. 54
CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5470 OF 2006.
Raju Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The applicant is real brother of the deceased. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. No one is named in the first information report. The applicant, who is said to be present at the time of murder, disclosed to the family members of the deceased that certain unknown assailants had caused the crime and they had also fired at the applicant who somehow escaped and he was the one who informed the villagers. Subsequently, the villagers disclosed that the applicant had already stated much before the incident, that in the event his brother (deceased) tried to remarry, he will not let him live. There are a number of statements of the witnesses. The story of firing made at the applicant by unknown assailants stands belied on account of absence of empty cartridges at the scene of occurrence. At this stage, the circumstances clearly point out a finger at the applicant who has admitted to be present at the scene of occurrence. Besides, the story of firing stands completely belied on perusal of the post mortem report. The story of unknown miscreants was given by the applicant with a view to cover up his own misdeeds. I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is rejected at this stage.
Learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.