QMAR LAIQ SIDDIQUI Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Gyanendra Pathak, Learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that, as alleged, the occurrence took place on 3.9.2010 at mid night and the first information report was lodged on the same day, i.e. 3.9.2010 at 8.30 a.m. The present first information report was lodged by wife of the deceased, who is not an eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel vehemently contends that though, as alleged in the first information report, Satya Raj Singh, brother of the complainant was present at the time of incident along with one Raj Kumar Singh, cousin brother of the complainant but none of them went to lodge the first information report and the story set up by the prosecution is that after the incident, both of them went and informed the complainant regarding the incident, who then with the family members including brother went to lodge the first information report, as it comes out from the statement of eye witness Raj Kumar Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE post mortem report on the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.9.2010 and only one ante mortem injury of fire arm was found.

(3.) GYANENDRA Pathak, Learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.