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


Goldie Alias Mohit Bhardwaj v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13218 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16572 (21 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. 13218 of 2006

Goldie alias Mohit Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Goldie alias Mohit Bhardwaj  with the prayer that he  may be released on bail in case crime no. 62 of 2006 under sections  304 I.P.C. P.S. Kavi Nagar district Ghaziabad.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Raki Sharma at P.S.  Kavinagar on 22.2.2006  at 9.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 21.2.2006. The distance of the police station was about 3 and half k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant  alleging therein that the applicant was carrying on the business of Electrical Items in the name and style of Mukesh Electrical. On 21.2.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. the applicant came at his shop and enquired about the father of the first informant. It was replied by him that the would come in a short while then it was told by the applicant that tell your father that "eq>s Hkh 'kjkQr fn[kkuh vkrh gS " We  also know how to show the gentleness" and asked to send him at his destination. After some time the father of the first informant came at the shop then he was apprised by the saying of the applicant. Thereafter he said that he was going to meet the applicant but for a long time he did not come back so closing the shop the first informant went to his house. At about 1.30 a.m. in the night two constables came to the house of the first informant and they inquired about the name of the first informant and gave information that the dead body of the deceased in burnt condition was lying in the District Hospital Ghaziabad. Thereafter, the first informant along with his mother and neighbor Sonu came to the hospital who stated that the applicant had burnt him. Thereafter the doctor had referred the case of the deceased to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi where he was taken by the first informant and died there soon after his arrival. The first informant was busy in providing medical aid to his father. He could not go to the police station to lodge  the F.I.R. immediately. Thereafter, whereas the police had already reached the District Hospital Ghaziabad. According to the Post Mortem Examination Report the deceased had received superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body except soles. Blackening and Charring were present at the place over the burn area. Singeing at skull and body heirs was present. Total burn area was about 98%.

Heard Sri V.P.Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Sri Santosh Tripathi and Smt. Mandvi Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel fort the applicant:

1.That the F.I.R. of this case is too much delayed. There is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R.

2.That it is highly improbable that the first informant without having the case of his father went to the house closing the shop.

3.That there is no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence.

4.That there is no direct eyewitness account. It is also surprising that the deceased was taken to the hospital and police went to the house of the first informant to give the information about the deceased.

5.That the applicant is a student. He is preparing for competition even in the night of the alleged occurrence he was participating in the 25th marriage anniversary of the father of his classmate Km. Reshu. This function was organized in a hotel. The photographs snapped during the function were also given to the I.O.

6. That the I.O.  have recorded the statement of Jageshwar Yadav, and Sunder Yadav who stated that the applicant was seen by them when he was going  in a disturbed condition and it is also stated that the deceased Mukesh. It is also stated that the deceased Mukesh had taken some money from the applicant but he had not returned the same and only to teach a lesson to him the deceased has been burnt alive.

7.That the statement of Sanjay Sharma was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that the deceased was thrown in a burnt condition then he was carried to the hospital by a police mobile van and in his presence the deceased had made the statement that he was killed by the applicant. The same statement was given by the Constable Dharmveer Singh and Constable Rajesh Kumar.

8.That the total evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation is of circumstantial in nature.

9.That there is no direct evidence to show that the applicant has committed the alleged offence.

10.That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the first informant and on account of doubt and suspicion.

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 was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence.

II.That the deceased had gone to meet the applicant because the deceased was called by him.

III.That he was seen in a disturbed condition by the witnesses and the deceased had told the first informant that he has been murdered by the applicant.

IV.That strong circumstantial evidence is against the applicant to show that he committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

V.That the plea of alibi taken by the applicant is baseless and it can be taken and considered at the stage of trial. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall temper with the evidence. Therefore he 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., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail.  Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 20.9.2006



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.