SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that the information was given at police station on 8.9.2010 by Lalman Yadav with regard to an unknown body which was floating in a lake; another information was given at police station on 12.9.2010 by wife of the deceased after she recognized the clothes of her husband, at the police station. In her information to police she had suspected the involvement of applicant and other co -accused persons, who are family members of her husband. It is also stated therein that on 6.9.2010, she had a talk with her husband who had gone with the applicant on a motor cycle to applicant's residence. The applicant is nephew of the deceased.

(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that over the mobile conversation with her husband, the complainant Bittan (Sitan) had heard exchange of hot words in between her husband and accused persons. Learned counsel states that since complainant did not care to inform the police at the earliest, it creates doubt on the prosecution version. It is further submitted that after about five months one of the brothers of the deceased Brijendra Kumar @ Bhoga stated in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had witnessed the occurrence but did not inform anyone due to fear, but when he felt that he himself was being roped in the crime, then he was left with no other option but to inform the police of the real incident. Learned counsel submits that this statement recorded after a yawning gap of five months does not inspire confidence and creates doubt on the prosecution version. The applicant is in jail since 2.12.2010 and has no previous criminal history as averred in para 11 of the bail application. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood that the applicant would evade the proceedings of the trial. Considering the facts and circumstance and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I direct that the applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 719/2010 under sections 302, 201,147,148,149 I.P.C., police station Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur, on his filing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/remand Magistrate.