RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Nar Narain Pandey alias Nanhey by the applicant Nar Narain Pandey alias Nanhey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 69 of 2010 under section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Gopiganj district Sant Ravidas Nagar(Bhadohi).
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Satish Kumar Dubey on 6.3.2010 at 00.10 a.m. at P.S. Gopiganj in respect of the alleged incident occurred on 5.3.2010 at 7.45 p.m., distance of the police station was bout 5 km from the alleged place of occurrence, the applicant and the co-accused Bridhi Narain Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey are named in the F.I.R. as accused, one accused is unknown. It is alleged that the first informant along with his family members was residing in the commercial premises known as Tulsi Chitra Mandir, Gopiganj. On 5.3.2010 at about 6 p.m. the first informant along with his nephew Anil Kumar alias Guddu and Umesh Kumar Shukla were ready to go to Allahabad to attend a birth day party then the applicant and co-accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias Jajjey came there on a bullet motorcycle who exchanged the hot talks with his nephew deceased Anil Kumar Dubey, they were demanding Gunda Tax/ Rangdari, in the meantime, they got an opportunity to put the deceased Anil Kumar Dubey in his Maruti Zen Car No. U.P. 60A 2442 by availing the same they proceeded towards Mirzapur Road, the above mentioned car was chased by the first informant Umesh Kumar Shukla and Balram Pandey by boarding themselves in Tata Sumo vehicle, the above mentioned Maruti Zen car was seen by them in front of the newly constructed house/workshop where it was parked. The first informant along with other persons reached there and saw inside the house that the applicant and one unknown person, were catching hold the deceased, thereafter, the accused Bridhi Narian Pandey alias Jajjey Pandey caused gun shot injury on the temporal region of the deceased at about 7.45 p.m. consequently the deceased died instantaneously. The accused persons after extending the threat and showing weapons escaped from the place of occurrence. After the death of the deceased, the licensed revolver of the deceased was found lying near the dead body, probably the gun shot injury was caused by that revolver. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained firearm wound of entry size 1 c.m. in diameter on the right parietal region, which was having blackening and charring, its exit wound was injury no.2, having the size of 1.5 c.m. in diameter on the left parietal region. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge Bhadohi Gyanpur, who rejected the same on 21.4.2010.
(3.) HEARD Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Viresh Mishra, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri B.R.J. Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant : 2 All] Nar Narain Pandey V. State of U.P. 897 1. That the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable. 2. That the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful, the manner in which the accused persons came to the premises of the first informant, and , the deceased was taken in his Maruti Zen Car , is wholly unreliable. 3. That the dead body of the deceased was found in a workshop of the applicant and his car was parked in front of that house, the licensed revolver of the deceased was also laying near the dead body, belies the whole prosecution story because if the deceased was killed by his licensed revolver, and the accused persons were not having their own weapons, there was no need to take away the deceased in the car to the place of occurrence, if he was forcibly taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons, licensed revolver would have been used by the deceased in his defence but there is no such story. ;