Allahabad High Court
Jeeva Gurjar Alias Rohit vs State Of India on 31 July, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 438 of 2018 Applicant :- Jeeva Gurjar Alias Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of India Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Gaurav Kakkad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Harendra Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 195 of 2017, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J., vide order dated 27.3.2018 It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the parantage of the accused-applicant is recorded wrong in the F.I.R., as in charge sheet, the same is recorded as Narpal, hence he is not real brother of the deceased and hence there could be no possibility that the property of deceased would devolve upon him in case of death of the deceased, hence no motive could be attributed to him of causing murder of the deceased. He has further argued that son of deceased, namely Harshit, who is stated to have witnessed the occurrence has stated that the deceased was beaten by Lathi & Danda but no ante mortem injury has been found in the post mortem of the deceased. In post mortem report, the duration of death is recorded 3/4 days, which does not tally with the date of occurrence as shown in the F.I.R.. He has also drawn attention to the statement of Harshit, which was recorded during trial and also drawn attention to the statement of father of the deceased, which was recorded before the trial court and has pointed out various discrepancies in their statements, which would show that they were not present on the place of occurrence, therefore, it is argued that accused-applicant should be released on bail. He is lying in jail since 25.5.2017. He has criminal history of 3 cases, which has been explained. He further argued that if Harshit had been there, he would also have been killed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer of bail stating that there was strong motive of causing death of deceased to the present accused-applicant. He was accompanying the other co-accused at the time of occurrence. The witness, Harshit, who is son of the deceased has clearly deposed that the deceased was beaten by the present accused-applicant along with other co-accused by Lathi & Danda. In post-mortem report, abrasion has also been found to have been caused to her which would have been certainly caused by Lathi & Danda. Ligature mark is also found in post-mortem report, which shows that she was strangulated to death, hence first bail application was rightly rejected.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to him. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 A.P. Pandey