🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Arvind Mishra @ Manager Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Case No: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4449 (B) of 2009

Date of Decision: Nov. 9, 2009

Hon'ble Judges: Raj Mani Chauhan, J

Final Decision: Dismissed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The accusedapplicant Arvind Mishra @ Manager Mishra is involved in Case Crime No. 626 of 2008, under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C., from

Police Station Fardhan, District Kheri.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Sanjay Gupta, son of complainant Devi Dayal Gupta was employed at Murli Filling Station within

police station Fardhan, District Kheri. He used to attend his daily duties coming from his home and return back his home after days work. On

22.06.2008 he was returning from the petrol pump on his motorcycle and one Ganga Charan was pillion rider. When they reached in front of

village Rukundipur, unknown accused shot Sanjay dead and looted the sale amount of amount of petrol pump which was carrying with him.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that Ganga Charan, who is eye witness of the occurrence, in his statement recorded by the

Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not disclose the name of any accused. The present accused and other accused were arrested

by the police party in police encounter case. It is alleged that the accused applicant confessed his involvement in this case. Thereafter, Investigating

Officer again recorded the statement of Ganga Charan who in his statement subsequently named the present accused. The statement of Ganga

Charan is of no value as he has not disclosed the name of assailant on the date of occurrence. In this way, the statement of Ganga Charan does not

appear to be reliable. Further prosecution case is that on the pointing out of the accused, the Investigating Officer recovered an amount of

Rs.4000/ from his house which is said to be looted property of this case. But the accused claims that the amount recovered from his house belongs

to him. The other coaccused have already been ordered to be released on bail. Therefore, the present accused applicant also deserves to be

released on bail.

4. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as keeping in

view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant may be released on

bail.

6. Let applicant Arvind Mishra @ Manager Mishra be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.