- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Omveer v. State Of U.P.
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant, Om Veer, filed an application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 351 of 2007 registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Shahpur district, Muzaffarnagar. The F.I.R. was lodged by Kirpal Singh on 31.7.2007 at 9:20 p.m., concerning an incident that occurred earlier the same day at about 7:00 p.m. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and is alleged to have committed murder by throttling. The post-mortem report confirmed death due to throttling. The applicant had earlier applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, which was rejected on 11.10.2007. Aggrieved by this order, the present bail application was filed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a murder case under section 302 IPC, given the facts and circumstances of the case?
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The applicant is innocent and his name was not disclosed in the inquest report or the site plan.
- The place of incident is not mentioned, and it was not possible for the applicant to commit the murder by throttling in the presence of five other persons present in the room.
- The applicant had no motive or intention to commit the offence.
- The first informant himself committed the murder and falsely implicated the applicant.
- The real mother of the deceased filed an affidavit stating she did not witness the incident.
- The applicant has no criminal antecedents and should therefore be released on bail.
Respondent's Arguments
- The F.I.R. was promptly lodged and the applicant is the sole accused responsible for the murder by throttling.
- There was a dispute over land, and the deceased was a disabled person.
- The prosecution case is supported by the post-mortem examination report.
- If released on bail, the applicant may tamper with evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case alongside the submissions made by both parties. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found that the applicant is not entitled to bail. The reasoning involved assessing the seriousness of the offence (murder by throttling), the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., and the risk of tampering with evidence if bail were granted.
Holding and Implications
The bail application is rejected.
The direct effect of this decision is that the applicant will remain in custody pending trial. The court did not establish any new legal precedent, and the decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case.
Ravindra Singh, J.:— This application has been filed by the applicant Om veer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 351 of 2007 under sections 302 I.P.C.P.S Shahpur district Muzaffarnagar.
2. That fact in brief of this case are that the F.I.R of this case has been lodged by Kirpal Singh on 31.7.2007 at 9.20 p.m in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31.7.2007 at about 7.00 p.m
3. The applicant is named in the F.I.R, it is alleged that the applicant has committed murder of the deceased by way of throttling. According to the post-mortem examination report the cause of death was due to throttling. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, the same was rejected on 11.10.2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 11.10.2007 the present bail application has been moved by the applicant.
4. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, assisted by Sri H.P Singh learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P
5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, name of the applicant was not disclosed in the inquest report in the site plan also, the place of incident has not been mentioned. It was not possible for the applicant to commit the murder of the de ceased by way of throttling in the presence of five persons who was also present in a room where the alleged offence has taken place. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The first informant himself has committed the murder of the deceased and lodged the F.I.R against the applicant. The real mother of the deceased has filed an affidavit on 24.9.2007 mentioning therein that she has not seen the alleged incident. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, he may be released on bail.
6. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A that in the present case F.I.R has been promptly lodged the applicant is the sole accused who committed the murder of the deceased by way of throttling, there was a dispute regarding the land and the deceased was a disabled person. The prosecution story is fully supported by the post-mortem examination report. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tam per with the evidence.
7. Considering the facts, circum stances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A and without ex pressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.
8. Accordingly this application is rejected.
9. Application Rejected.
Alert