- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Babu Lal, the applicant has approached this Court for the second time to be released on bail in crime number 449 of 2004 under Section 302/34 IPC Police Station Kotwali District Jalaun at Orai. His first bail payer was denied by Hon'ble C. P. Misra, J. on 11-5-2005 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7813 of 2005.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the allegation against the applicant are that Kumari Babli niece of informant Veer Singh was murdered by the applicant Babu Lal, Lakshami Narain and Ram Babu since two years prior to the date of incident of the present case. Regarding the said murder of Km. Babli a case was pending in the Court in which the informant was a witness. The applicant and other accused were building pressure on the informant Veer Singh to enter into a compromise in the said case and many a times had threatened him also with dire consequences. Because of the said litigation on 22-10-2004 the applicant alongwith co-accused Ram Babu and Lakshami Narain enticed away Ankush Kumar, a 6 year old son of the informant at 5 p. m. from mohalla Turnurganj where the boy had gone to see Ma Durga Jhaki. Smt. Geeta wife of Bhagwat Prasad and Ram Jivan had witnessed the said enticement and taking of the child. After searching for the whole night the corpse of the boy was traced out at 8 a. m. next day in the precinct of one Jai Karan in front of Allahabad Bank. The autopsy of the deceased child dated 23-10- 2004 revealed that he was inflicted six incised wound with fracture of frontal bone. The applicant had applied for bail in this Court but as has been stated in the opening paragraph of this order his said bail application was rejected on 11-5-2005. Hence this second bail application. Two supplementary affidavits by the applicant, a counter-affidavit by respondent and a rejoinder affidavit been filed in the case. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Roshan Khan in support of this bail application and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi Counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA in opposition. Learned senior Counsel contended that in this case the FIR had been lodged after a great delay after the discovery of the dead-body and for which there is no satisfactory explanation. He further submitted that Smt. Geeta one of the witnesses has turned hostile in the trial and she did not support the prosecution case. He further argued that in the trial all the witnesses of fact has been examined and there is no chance of tampering with witnesses. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness account of the actual incident. He also stated that in the earlier murder case the applicant was not charge-sheeted and later on he was summoned as accused under Section 319 Cr. P. C. by the trial Court. He contended that the only evidence against the applicant is that of last seen.
(3.) LEARNED AGA as well as Sri M. C. Chaturvedi Advocate controverting the contentions of the applicant's Counsel submitted that the applicant had a strong motive for committing the murder and the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and next morning his body was discovered. They submitted that there was no delay in lodging the FIR as the deceased was searched whole night. They further argued that the applicant is also an accused in the earlier murder case and the police in his connivance had submitted final report in his favour but the trial Court rightly summoned him under Section 319 Cr. P. C. They also contended that there is no new fact and this second bail is being argued on the same points, which were placed before this Court at the time of consideration of the first bail application of the applicant. They also submitted that the accused had absconded many time and even 82-83 proceeding were taken against him and so much so that award for his arrest was also announced. More over they argued that the trial is at the fag end. They invited the attention of the Court on para 3 of the counter-affidavit where the conduct of the applicant is detailed sub-parawise. They cementing their contentions contended that the applicant had committed the murder of an infant child aged about six years in a merciless manner as his father was a witness against him in the earlier murder case and therefore the applicant is not entitle to bail. I have gone through the record of this second bail application. In this case a young boy aged about six years was murdered with six incised wounds on his body. The applicant was last seen enticing him away in the night and next day morning his body was discovered. The applicant was an accused in a murder case in which the father of the deceased is a witness. The said trial is still pending conclusion and therefore the applicant had a strong motive. In the earlier murder case the applicant had absconded many times and the present incident had taken place to deter the witnesses of the earlier trial. More over the trial is at the fag end. The applicant in this case had tried to tamper with evidence of the earlier murder case and had committed the crime in a merciless manner. He had absconded in the earlier murder case and 82-83 proceeding had been taken against him. There is a plausible reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR and more over the post-mortem report is consistent with the prosecution version. The arguments raised in this second bail application are not new and they were argued at the time of the first bail application also and hence there is no new ground for reconsideration of the bail of the applicant. For all these reasons in my view the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.;