Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This bail application has been filed by the applicant Dinesh Singh Rathore with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2007 under Sections 394, 302 and 411, I.P.C. P. S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Shailendra Kumar Sethi on 31.7.2007 at 8.10 p.m. against the unknown miscreants alleging therein that he got a telephonic message that his mother has been killed, then he came to his house and saw that his mother was lying on a pillow in a dead condition. Her mouth and hands were tied with clothes. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained five ante mortem injures. THE cause of death was due to ante-mortem strangulation. During investigation it has been stated by witnesses that Motorola Cell Phone No. 9919350659 of the deceased, two ladies wrist watches of titan company and one camera have also been stolen by the miscreants. Some other articles were also stolen. THE applicant alongwith co-accused Suresh Singh alias Pappu and co-accused Santosh Kumar had been apprehended by the Police on 20.8.2007. THEy made a confessional statement and from the possession of the applicant one mobile Motorola Cell phone, one ladies wrist watch of titan company have been recovered and from the possession of the co-accused Suresh Singh one ladies wrist watch of titan company has been recovered and from the possession of the co-accused Santosh Kumar the stolen camera has been recovered. During the course of recovery the first informant and his father Bihari Lal Sethi also came at the place of occurrence and identified all the recovered items. During investigation the I.O. has collected the call details of the phone recovered from the possession of the applicant. Heard Sri R. J. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., for the State of U. P. and Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., he has not been put up for identification. The recovery of Motorola Cell phone, one ladies wrist watch has been planted, it is not supported by any independent witness and according to the call details also the applicant is not connected with the Commission of the alleged offence. He has been arrested by the police and the recovery has been shown after 20 days of lodging the F.I.R. In the present case the witnesses have been examined, the cross-examination of P.W. 1 has been concluded and the co-accused Suresh Singh whose case is based on the same footing with the case of the applicant have been released on bail by the another Bench of this Court on 31.3.2008 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5694 of 2008. From his possession the recovery of ladies wrist watch of titan company has been shown. He was also arrested alongwith applicant and there is no other evidence against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case the Motorola Cell phone has been recovered from the possession of the applicant which is stolen property, the applicant has used the Cell phone of the deceased, it was kept in surveillance and there are call details also. The applicant is having criminal antecedent. IN the present case eight witnesses have been examined. There is likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future and the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of other co-accused who has been released on bail, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the Motorola Cell phone of the deceased has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, he has used the same, its call details have also been collected by the I.O. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Suresh Singh who has been released on bail by the another Bench of this Court and the eight witnesses have been examined before the trial court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.;