Pranav Kumar @ Rinku vs State Of U.P. on 20 September, 2023
12. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of accused coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has occurred in the house of the first informant himself, the information regarding the occurrence was reported from the side of the first informant at the concerned Police Station on 14.06.2023 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 174A Cr.P.C. and it was admitted from the side of the first informant that the deceased had committed suicide, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 15.06.2023 wherein it was opined by the Autopsy Surgeon that the cause of death of deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, after expiry of a period of 1 month and 3 days from the date of post mortem, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 18.07.2003 was filed by the first informant, the charge sheet was submitted against all the named accused on 23.07.2004, thereafter, in the resulting trial as the applicant did not appear, his trial was segregated but all other 4 named/charge sheeted accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them by court below vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Shiv Singh and Others), thus the prosecution could not establish the very story, which it set out to prove, the prosecution witnesses of fact have been disbelieved by the Court on account of being unworthy of reliance and unworthy of credit, therefore, irrespective of the adverse facts as noted above and pointed out by the counsel for first informant and the learned A.G.A. in vehement opposition to the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.