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


Gulli Kewat v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13545 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15097 (1 September 2006)


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. 47

Criminal misc. Bail Application No. 13545 of 2006

Gulli Kewat Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by Gulli Kewat with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 70 of 2006 under sections 302,201 and 120-B I.P.C. P.S. Chowk district Maharajganj.

The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Pushpanjali Devi on 28.3.2006  at about 6.40 a.m. in respect of the incident  which had occurred on or before 6.3.2006. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons. It is alleged that the deceased Nand Lal Mishra, was not traceable. The information of his missing was lodged by the first informant on 13.3.2006. Thereafter she came to the house of her  maternal grand father where Ayodhya Prasad, the brother of her maternal grand father, his son Subhash and Sadhu Saran were not present. The first informant inquired from the wife of the co-accused Ayodhya Prasad she replied that they had gone in search of Nana( maternal grand father). Thereafter the first informant came back to her house and she was searching to her Nana but the applicant and other co-accused persons have left their house since the day of the lodging of the report of missing on 9.3.2006. A Criminal Janardan Ojha, a relative of the  co-accused persons, has usually visiting  the house of the co-accused Ayodhya. Due to these circumstances the first informant believed that the applicant and other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and the deceased was abducted and murdered and the dead body has been concealed. The deceased was having no male issue, he was having only one female issue i.e. the mother of the first informant who  has also died. For the purpose of selling the land the deceased had taken some money from  Kamla Kant Singh. The accused persons were having apprehension that the land will be sold by the deceases and to usurp the same the deceased has been murdered.  The deceased has been murdered by his brother Ayodhya, his nephew Subhash Misra, Sadhu Saran Misra  co-accused Janardan Ojha and the applicant.

The dead body of the deceased has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. According to the post mortem examination report the cause of  death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

Heard Sri V.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant :

1.That the F.I.R. is delayed. It has been lodged after 22 days of the alleged occurrence. The explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not plausible.

2.That the applicant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 28.3.2006, on the same day the inquest report was prepared and on 29.3.2006 its post mortem was done.

3.That in the missing report lodged by the first informant the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. as an accused but on 28.3.2006 the F.I. R. has been lodged. According to the F.I.R. it was lodged prior to the recovery of the dead body whereas the correct fact is that F.I.R. was lodged after the recovery of the dead body.

4.That according to the prosecution version itself motive is only against the co-accused persons and not against the applicant.

5.That the co-accused also disclosed the name of the applicant in their confessional statement given to the police. The confessional statement of the applicant has already been recorded by the police. In fact, he has not confessed before the police.

6.That the allegation made against the applicant that at his pointing out the dead body was recovered is absolutely false and baseless. The recovery was planted and the recovery was made from open place having easy access.

7.That the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct on the witnesses again and the applicant is not having criminal antecedent. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant :

I)That the applicant is also an  associate of the co-accused Ayodhya Prasad and  others. He is also a member of the conspiracy and the deceased was conducted by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, they committed his murder and the dead body was concealed. There was strong motive. The deceased was murdered in the night of 5/6.3.2006 at about 11.00 p.m.

II)That the statement of witness Ali Ahmad was recorded. He saw  the applicant and other co-accused persons in the night having a Gathri(Bundle)  and Kudal( pick axe) and at the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Subhash Misra the dead body was exhumed on 28.3.2006 because after committing the murder of the deceased the dead body of the deceased was buried for the purpose of concealing the same.

III)That the applicant and the other co-accused persons committed the murder of the deceased in a pre-planned manner and the applicant is also having criminal antecedent and there is confessional statement of the applicant also before the witnesses also.  The chain of the circumstances is complete.  In case, the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any merits on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 1.9.2006



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.