RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.S. Khokhar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS application has been moved by the applicant Ankur Chaudhary with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 149 of 2011 under sections 302 I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Medical, district Meerut. The facts in brief of the case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Ajai Kumar at P.S. Medical on 8.3.2011 at 9.55 p.m. in respect of the incident which allegedly occurred at 8.3.2011 at 8.30 p.m. to 9.30. p.m. it is alleged that the deceased Dr. Har Pal Singh resident of district Meerut was posted in the district Jail Meerut prior 20.2.2011, he was residing in the residence provided by the District Jail, Meerut, he had gone from his residence for evening walk at about 8.30 p.m., somebody came to his house by ringing the door bell and inquired about the deceased, it was replied by the first informant that he had gone for walking after taking the meal then he told that somebody had caused gun shot injury to him and the police had taken him to the Medical College, then the first informant came to the medical Collage where he came to know that the deceased has been killed by somebody else. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained six ante mortem injuries, during investigation the name of the applicant came into the light. The applicant applied for bail, before the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, the same has been rejected on 31.8.2011.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the first informant is not eye witness but subsequently in the second statement of the first informant which was recorded on 10.5.2011, the first informant claimed himself to be an eye witness. The second statement of the first informant is not reliable at all, it has been recorded after two months of the alleged incident. The applicant was arrested by the police on 18.3.2011 and the recovery of the pistol and its cartridges have been planted. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and co-accused Amit Kumar and Ajay Sharma were apprehended by the police on 18.3.2011 in case crime No. 146 of 2011 under section 302 IPC. From their possession two pistols and cartridges of 32 bores, one CMP along with cartridges, one santro car and DLK were recovered, the recovery was planted by the police, it is not supported by any independent witness. It is alleged that the name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused after eleven days of the alleged incident. The applicant was having no motive to commit the alleged offence. In fact nobody has seen the alleged incident but at a very belated stage the I.O. has recorded the statement of some witnesses who claimed themselves to be eye witness. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant was falsely implicated in three cases, he has been acquitted in case crime No. 362 of 2010 under section 307 IPC, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut, in case crime No. 363 of 2010 under section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut and he has been released on bail in case crime No. 325 of 2010, under sections 302, 120-B IPC. The applicant is not involved in any other case. The applicant may be released on bail.;