Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48862

of 2020

Applicant :- Mallu @ Ajay

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Singh

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.K.

Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind

Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Janardan

Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on

record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mallu @ Ajay

seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with

Case Crime No. 161 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34, 506 IPC,

registered at P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is

not named in the First Information Report. It is argued that the

First Information Report has been lodged by Smt. Kamlesh

Bhardwaj on 19.04.2020 at 19:10 hrs for an incident which is

alleged to have taken place on 19.04.2020 at 17:00 hrs who

claims herself to be an eye witness to the incident, in which, she

has named Deepak Siddhu specifically and has stated that there

were two other unknown persons who have fired upon her son,

as a result of which, he received injuries and died. It is argued

that the first informant has claimed herself to be an eye witness

of the incident and states that her son was in the habit of

consuming intoxicant and had gone out of the house, to which,

she searched her, and during search, reached the place of

occurrence, when she saw him to be quarreling with the said

three accused persons, and on reaching near, she identified one

of the persons as Deepak Siddhu, on which, the quarrel

increased and the said three persons fired upon the deceased, as

a result of which, he died. It is argued that subsequently, after

45 days i.e. on 05.06.2020, the first informant gave an

application to the Investigating Officer, in which, she has

named six accused persons, namely, Deepak Siddhu, Arun,

Rahul Kashyap, Mohit, Mallu @ Ajay and Ankit @ Angad and

has stated that she has come to know that the said persons have

collectively murdered her son, in which, the name of the

applicant has surfaced and further has stated that one Ankit

Harijan has given information about her son to the assailants. It

is argued that the occurrence in the present case is of

19.04.2020 and the First Information Report was registered on

the same day by the mother of the deceased who claims herself

to be an eye witness of the incident but the name of the

applicant does not find place in the same which was disclosed

by her after 45 days in the application given to the Investigating

Officer. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant,

is false and incorrect and clearly shows an afterthought. It is

further argued that the prosecution has then shown certain

contacts of the applicant along with co-accused Deepak Siddhu

and from that an inference is being drawn that since the

applicant was in touch with him and other accused persons, he

is also involved in the present case. It is further argued that the

police has shown the recovery of a 315 bore country made

pistol from the possession of the applicant but there is no

corroborative evidence regarding its use and the same is a

planted recovery. It is further argued that the applicant has no

motive to commit the aforesaid offence. He further argued that

the applicant has no criminal hsitory as stated in para 45 of the

affidavit and is in jail since 10.07.2020.

Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first

informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued

that there is no delay in the implication of the applicant as the

argument that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the

present case for the first time on