RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Dilip Kumar and Rajeev Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri B.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Mukesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 442 of 2010 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. The facts in brief of this case are that an information to the police station Karhal was given by Sri Kamlesh Kumar on 17.4.2010 at 6.10 A.M. mentioning that his son, the deceased Charan Singh aged about 18 years was taken from his house in the evening on 16.4.2010 by the co-accused Subhash and the applicant Mukesh. The first informant was not permitting to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused person even then they had taken the deceased. In the morning of 17.4.2010 at about 4.00 A.M. first informant received information that to know the whereabouts of the deceased who had gone thresher. On that information the first informant came to the field with Suresh son of Megh Singh and saw that thresher and tractor were pre­sent but nobody was present there. He saw the thresher in which body of the deceased was embedded but he could not know as to what manner the alleged occurrence had taken place. On that information the in­quest report was prepared on 17.4.2010 and die post-mortem examination was done on 17.4.2010 at 3.30 P.M. According to the post-mortem examination report the de­ceased had sustained ten ante mortem inju­ries. Thereafter the detailed FIR was lodged by first informant Kamlesh Kumar at the police station, Karhal on 6.5.2010 at about 7.00 or 8.00 P.M. The deceased was called by the applicant and co-accused Subhash from his house at the pretext of threshing the wheat crop. The first informant was not permitting because prior to five or six days, there had been a quarrel between the ap­plicant and co-accused Subhash. The wit­ness Sadho Singh and Nigaate lal saw the applicant when they were taking the de­ceased at about 9.00 P.M. on the way. By that time they were extending the threats. On a quarry made by them it was told by the deceased that applicant and other co-accused persons were taking him on field for threshing work. On 17.4.2010 at about 4.00 A.M. it was told by one Jaipal Singh that the deceased was embedded in thresher. On that information the first in­formant came to the field and saw the dead body of the deceased embedded in the trac­tor, the tractor was also parked there, but the applicant and co-accused Subhash were not present there. The deceased was died but there was no blood in the thresher or near the thresher there was no crop of the wheat or straw of the wheat. This informa­tion was given to the police station con­cerned. On the same day witness Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra saw the ap­plicant and co-accused Subhash and two unknown persons. They embedded the dead body of the deceased at about 2.00 or 2.30 A.M. On 20.4.2011 it was apprised by the Subhash that on 19.4.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. the applicant and co-accused Subhash came there who stated that they had com­mitted the mistake by committing the murder of the deceased because he was not paying their money and they asked for compromise. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri who rejected the same on 19.4.2010.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the first informant is not an eye-witness, in FIR there is no refer­ence that the alleged incident has been wit­nessed by any person. The information was given by the first informant about the acci­dental death whose dead body was em­bedded/inserted in the thresher but it was mentioned that in the evening of 16.4.2011, the deceased was called from his house by the applicant and other co-accused persons, though the first informant was not permit­ting the deceased to go in the company of the applicant and other co-accused and in the morning the dead body was found. The report was scribed by Rajveer Singh that on 6.5.2010 i.e. after about 20 days of the al­leged incident, an application was moved before the S.S.P. Mainpuri making the alle­gation against the applicant, the same has been registered as FIR. The first informant has been interrogated by the I.O. he nar­rated the same story as mentioned in the FIR but on important queries made by I.O. the first informant kept silence, he was asked as to why he did not reveal the event of quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Subhash which occurred about 5 or 6 days prior to the alleged incident and as to why he allowed the decease to go in the company of accused persons, he was again quarried as to whether he had given written application on 17.4.2010 on in cor­rect facts about the death. He accepted that he had handed over the written informa­tion on the same day. Thereafter the I.O. had taken six affidavits from the family members of the victim. The said persons were, namely, Sadho Singh, the real brother of grand father of the victim, Nibhati lal real brother of grand father of the victim, Umesh Kumar and Mahesh Chandra, the real uncles of the victim and one Subhash Chandra resident of Nagla Hare, the real maternal uncle of the victim, they had cor­roborated the concocted and improved ver­sion which had seen in the light of the day on 6.5.2010 for the first time. The statement of Subhash was also recorded showing that the applicant had made extra-judicial con­fession. The I.O. had recorded the state­ment of other persons in the case diary. Except above mentioned statement there is no evidence against the applicant. The en­tire story of prosecution is totally false and concocted and cooked up. In the present case no blood was found either on the thresher or near the thresher. According to the prosecution version there was no wheat crop and straw. The witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the I.O. are wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed on such belated and after thought version, the applicant is having no criminal antecedent.;