- (1.) THE aforesaid three connected bail applications have been moved on behalf of applicants Chandrama Chauhan, Chandrasen Chauhan, Chandra Shekhar Chauhan and Bhuwal @ Santosh involved in case crime no.159 of 2011 under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.
(2.) SINCE all the three connected bail applications pertain to the same crime number, as such they are being disposed of by a common order. Heard Sri J.S. Audichya and Sri Vikash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants - Chandrama Chauhan, Chandrasen Chauhan and Chandra Shekhar Chauhan, Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant - Bhuwal @ Santosh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri T.B. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant in all the three connected bail applications and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the deceased Rishikesh Chauhan, son of the first informant, aged about 6 -7 years went missing since 14.3.2011. A missing report was lodged on 15.3.2011. Subsequently, on 5.4.2011, FIR was lodged suspecting the role of the applicants in the kidnapping of the child. Learned counsel submitted that on the date of FIR itself, two witnesses Santosh Chauhan and Pradeep Chauhan came forward with a story that two days earlier, the applicants made extra judicial confession in their presence. On the same day, all the four applicants were arrested by the police and it is claimed that at the joint pointing out of all the four applicants, the dead body in the form of skeleton and bones was found in a mustard field in the same village. The body was in highly decomposed position and in the skeleton form, but is claimed to have been identified with the help of clothes and locket. The contention is that the extra judicial confession is a very weak type of circumstantial evidence. There was no occasion for the applicants to make any extra judicial confession before Santosh Chauhan and Pradeep Chauhan, as they were not in a position to help the applicants in any manner. It was further contended that the dead body is alleged to have been recovered at the joint pointing out of four accused persons and it is not known as to who is the first accused, who gave up the whereabouts of the body. It is also not known from whose field the body was recovered. It was further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the skeleton belongs to the son of the complainant and there was no motive in the crime.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on account of old enmity due to election of Pradhan, the son of the first informant was kidnapped and murdered and there is strong circumstantial evidence in the form of extra judicial confession and recovery of dead body. The recovery of bones is at the joint pointing out of four accused. From the recovery memo, it is not clear as from whose field the bones were recovered. There is no direct evidence of murder. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the missing report, not even the suspicion was raised against the applicants. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. ;