The decision emphasized the importance of evidence of active participation, completion of investigation, absence of criminal conviction, and expeditious trial in granting bail.

Vipin Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari and Sri N.I. Zafri learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Viresh Mishra and Miss. Viparna Gaur, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri N.B. Singh learned AGA for the State.

2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2016, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun.

3. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R.; and also the bail rejection order.

4. The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR wherein six persons have been specifically named. The first informant is not an eye witness. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of information received from one Bihari, the eye witness, who was driving scooty on which the deceased was the pillion rider. The contention is that the deceased was a woman and also an advocate and she met with an accident, which has been given a shape of pre planned murder. Further contention is that Bihari in his statement given under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not named the applicant; that the applicant had no motive to commit the crime; that as per the FIR version itself the motive, if any, lies with an accused who has been named in the FIR itself, namely, Yogendra Sagar. It has been submitted that after a period of one month one Samsad was introduced who has completely changed the entire prosecution story and applicant though not named specifically but description has been given and specific role of 120B IPC of hatching of conspiracy has been assigned to the co-accused Girish Mishra; that in the statement which is annexure-5 at page 57, six persons have been introduced, along with Girish Mishra and the applicant. Even though the applicant has not been named, however in the said statement it is clearly mentioned %hnd1%Þbl dke ds fy, fxjh”k feJk ls 45000 esa lkSnk gqvk FkkAÞ%hnd2% Thus in the said statement main role has been assigned to co-accused Girish Mishra of hatching a conspiracy and by also of striking a deal with the other accused persons and thus of hatching of conspiracy in the commission of murder of the deceased. Thereafter the confessional statement of Kallu was recorded and second statement of Bihari was also recorded. The statement of Bihari has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 and in the said statement the applicant has been introduced and motive has been assigned and he also has been assigned the role of hatching a conspiracy. The further contention is that after a period of four months, another person, namely, Manoj has been introduced, who claims himself to be an eye witness and also claims that while he was trying to help the victim, the victim uttered that %hnd1%ih lh “kekZ rwus eq>s ejok fn;kA %hnd2% However, the fact remains that this persons has been introduced in the scene after four months and his statement was recorded on 23.9.2016. He has not been named in the FIR as an eye witness. It has been further pointed out that Bihari was the person who was present on the spot as he was driving the scooty on which she was a pillion rider. Much reliance has been placed on the averments contained in paragraph 20 and onwards and on the basis of which false implication of the applicant has been contended. The first informant appearing in person has strongly opposed the bail application and this court record its appreciation in the manner that the case has been argued very ably.

5. This Court asked a specified question as to how and in what manner she is trying to distinguish the case of the applicant from that of Girish Mishra who is a co-accused and who was assigned the main role of being a initiator and of striking a deal and of paying the money and who has been granted bail vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 passed by another Bench of this Court by means of a very reasoned, ela