The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on a co-accused's confession without corroboration is insufficient to deny bail.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State, Shri Sanjay Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant-complainant, and perused the records.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has filed ‘Rejoinder affidavit/reply to the complainant’s supplementary affidavit’ which is taken on record.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 063 of 2024, under Section 302/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt., District Ayodhya.

4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 26.02.2024 at 04:58 hours, stating that the informant was told by some unnamed villagers in the night of 26.02.2024 at 12:30 hours that his 25 years’ old son had met with an accident near house of Ram Karan Yadav. The injured was taken to a hospital where the doctor told that he had died due to gun-shot injury.

5. The post-mortem examination report mentions lacerated entry wounds on back of chest, waist, as well as left arm and lacerated exit wound on left arm. The cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries.

6. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the F.I.R. version.

7. On 01.03.2024, the investigating officer recorded statement of one Sunil Yadav, who stated that Ritesh Yadav and the applicant Rajeev Yadav had come to him and they had told that they had killed Vishal Yadav. They stated that the police was suspecting their involvement in commission of the offence and was searching for them and they requested the said witness to save them. The police claimed that on the basis of aforesaid information, when the police party apprehended the applicant and co-accused Ritesh Yadav, the accused persons fired gun-shots towards the police personnel, but no police person received any injury in the incident. The co-accused Ritesh Yadav suffered a gun-shot injury on his leg due to retaliatory firing.

8. In his custodial confessional statement recorded in that case, Ritesh Yadav alleged involvement of the applicant also in the present case.

9. In para-25 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the applicant’s involvement in ten other criminal cases has been disclosed. In four cases the applicant has been granted bail. In four cases, he has been implicated after his arrest in the present case and two cases under the Gangsters Act have been registered on the basis of the applicant’s involvement in the other cases.

10. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that apart from the custodial confessional statement of the co-accused Ritesh Yadav, there is no other material to connect the applicant with commission of the alleged offence.

11. Sri. Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant’s involvement in commission of the offence has been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted against him. However, he could not dispute the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the only material against the applicant is the custodial confessional statement of the co-accused Ritesh Yadav.

12. Sri Sanjay Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, has vehemently opposed the bail application and he submitted that the deceased had given a dying-declaration implicating the applicant. As per him, the dying-declaration can be inferred from statement of the in