- (1.) R. K. Jain, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties including the learned coun sel for the complainant.
(2.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and one Muntjir alias Guddu are said to have fired at the victim with country made pis tols whereas one Shahid is said to have fired with a rifle. The post mortem ex amination report discloses two rifle in juries of entrance with their exit wounds and one superficial gun shot injury. The possibility of rifle shots being caused by one person can not be ruled out. Hence involvement of al least one of the miscreants said to have fired at the deceased with pistols appears to he false. It is further submitted that the circumstan ces show that the prosecution version is not correct. The applicant and Muntjir alias Guddu are brothers of Muktjir alias Kalua. The prosecution version is that one Ashif son of Salim was killed on the day of incident in city of Bulandshahar which is at a distance of 4 kms. from the place of occurrence. The incident occurred at 12. 15 p. m. After the incident of murder of Ashif, accused Muktjir alias Kalua is said to have handed ewer his riile to co-accused Shahid instigating him to take revenge whereupon the three miscreants came to the village of incident and committed the murder of the first informants father. It is pointed out that Muktjir had lodged the First Information Report of the murder of Ashif al 12. 45 p. m. The report was written report and the distance of the police sta tion was around 5 kms. His submission is that Muktjir must not have been present when the villagers went to sec the dead body of Ashif. It is also submitted that the prosecution version originally was that when the victim had just come out of his house he was fired at by the miscreants and he fell down then and there but the dead body was found at the distance of 12 paces from Use house of the deceased and then the prosecution changed its ver sion alleging that the victim had run for some distance and then fell down. It is also submitted that one. 315 bore cartridge is said to have been recovered from near the dead body which shows that the victim was fired at place where the dead body was found. It is also pointed out that in the challan nash in form No. 13 time of the lodging of the report and time of sending the dead body to the Head quarter are not mentioned which indicate that the report is ante-timed. Learned counsel for the com plainant submits that it is likely that one of the pistols may be of. 315 bore. Therefore, two wounds of entry of. 315 bore cartridge were found. It is next submitted that the incident occurred at J. 15 p. m. , the report was lodged promptly, there are eye-wit nesses and the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant arc not very material. Learned A. G. A. submits that there has been chain of murders between the parties and the applicant is nominated in the FIR. Having considered rival arguments and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I am of the view that the applicant may he released on bail.
(3.) APPLICANT Mohd. Muttahir in volved in case Crime No. 441-A of 1999, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 504, 506/34, IPC P. S. Kotwali Dehat, district Bulandshahar shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Bulandshahar. Bail granted. .;