- (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, and Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Virendra Singh and Sri Jata Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Pradeep Pandey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 243 of 2003 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. The facts in brief of this case are that FIR of this case has been lodged by Smt. Kallu Devi at P.S. Kokhraj, district Kaushambi on 6.10.2003 at 8.00 A.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 6.10.2003 at about 2.00 A.M. The applicant and co-accused Satish Pandey are named in FIR as accused. It is alleged that at the time of alleged incident the first informant, his father was lying on the cot in Varanda on the ground floor. At about 2.00 A.M. the sound of fire came out, the first informant and her family members saw there the applicant and co-accused in a running condition from the courtyard. The deceased was serving in the railway department, about 14 months prior the alleged incident, he had come on pension. He had received the amount of about three lacs as a fund. He was persuaded by the applicant Pradeep Pandey, the deceased was started to live at his house. The applicant and co-accused had taken the amount of Rs. One lac and twenty five thousands from the deceased, the same was not returned and the deceased has been killed by them so that the amount taken by them may not be returned. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained fire arm wound of entry. The applicant applicant for bail before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaushambi who rejected the same on 3.8.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night. According to the FIR itself at the time of the alleged incident all the persons were sleeping. On hearing the sound of firing the first informant and other family members saw the applicant and co-accused when they were running away from the courtyard after committing the murder of the deceased. It appears that the deceased has been killed in the dark hours of night in some other manner but due to ill-will of the first informant the FIR has been lodged against the applicant and his brother in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. There is no eye witness account. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that motive has been given in the FIR itself. The applicant and co-accused were seen immediately after commission of the murder by the first informant and other family members when they were running away from the courtyard. During investigation the independent witnesses namely Harishchand Pasi and Ram Naresh interrogated, they stated that applicant was having SBBL gun and co-accused Satish Pandey was armed with country made pistol, they saw that when they were running away from the house of deceased. The trial of the applicant is in progress. The statement of Dhanpatiya, the wife of the deceased was recorded, she had supported the prosecution version. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions 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 it is a case in which the applicant and co-accused were identified immediately after commission of the alleged offence by the first informant and other family members when they were running away from the courtyard of the deceased. During investigation the evidence witnesses Harishchand Pasi and Ram Naresh have also supported the prosecution story, they saw them having SBBL gun and country made pistol when they running from the courtyard of the deceased. Trial of the applicant is in progress 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 application is dismissed.;