Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bharat Bhushan Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the complainant. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Rajveer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 66 of 2011 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rajpura, District Badaun.
(2.) THE facts in brief o this case that FIR has been lodged by Surendra Pal on 20.1.2011 at 7.25 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 20.1.2011 at about 5 P.M. In FIR co-accused Islam, co-accused Ram Dayal, co-accused Banwari and applicant Rajveer are named in the FIR as accused, five or six persons were unknown. It is alleged that in the election of village pradhan the wife of the deceased was elected by defeating the co-accused Chandrapal. Since then the co-accused Chandrapal and his party members developed the enmity with the deceased and chandrapal had challenged the deceased. On 20.1.2011 at about 5.00 when the Scorpio of the deceased passed the village Dupatta Khurd the applicant and other co-accused persons came from the sugar can crop having the fire arms, lathi, bhala and ballam, they discharged the shots at the exhortation of the co-accused Chandrapal all the co-accused discharged the shots indiscriminately. THE co-accused Banwari Yadav also discharged the shots upon the deceased. THE Prempal also sustained injury in side the vehicle. THE deceased Rajpal shot dead on the sheet. According to the statement of the injured witnesses the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged the shot indiscriminately causing the injuries to the deceased and injured persons. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained 13 ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1, 3,4,7.9. and 11 are fire arm wounds of entry, injury No. 2,5,8,10 and 12 are fire arm wounds of exit and injury No. 6 and 13 are fire arm abrasions. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge Badaun who rejected the same on 8.7.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case seven persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. The present of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The alleged occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. It had taken place in some other manner. But after great thought and consultation on account of village partibandi the FIR has been lodged against the applicant and other co-accused person whereas the alleged incident has been committed by some unknown person. According to FIR itself five or six miscreants were unknown. The FIR of this case is ante timed. It is alleged that accused persons were having the lathi, Ballam and Bhala also, no specific weapon has been shown in the hands of the applicant. Simply it is alleged that all the accused discharged the shots indiscriminately. The co-accused Ramveer Singh whose name was disclosed by the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. have been released on bail by this court on 17.8.2011 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18247 of 2011, therefore the applicant may also be released on bail. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The motive has been attributed tot he co-accused Chandrapal who has lost the election of village pradhan from the wife of the deceased. The application is having no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 21.1.2011, he may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence had taken place broad day light, the FIR has been promptly lodged, in which persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged the shots indiscriminately causing the gun shot injury to the deceased and injured persons. The deceased has sustained 13 ante mortem injuries. In the said incident two persons have sustained injuries also, their presence at the alleged place of occurrence may not be disputed. The co-accused Ramveer Sing has been released on bail was not named in the FIR whereas the applicant is named in the FIR. The case of the co-accused Ramveer Singh is distinguishable with the case of the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that the applicant is named in the FIR. The FIR has been promptly lodged. It is alleged that the accused persons discharged the shots indiscriminately caused the injury to the deceased and injured persons. According the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained 13 ante mortem injuries. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Ramveer Singh who has been released on bail by this court on 17.8.2011 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18247 of 2011 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this bail application is rejected.;