Arvind Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 22 October, 2020
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased under Sections 363, 366 and 504 IPC against one Deepak Saini and two others. Subsequently, the body of the girl was recovered and then the applicant and certain others were implicated in the case on the charge of murder under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. The counsel contends that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses. It is further contended that though there are 20 ante mortem injuries, but there is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant which could have been used in the alleged crime. It has been pointed out that in Bail No. 11482 of 2019, Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P., the co-accused has been granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.08.2019. The counsel contends that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.