- (1.) HEARD Sri Shailendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THIS bail application has filed by the applicant Arunesh @ Chhotey Monu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 1178 of 2010 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Monu son of Satya Pal against the accused Kundan, Fateh Singh, Arvind and Pintoo alleging there in that the first informant, the applicant and the deceased Deepu were returning from Khajuriya when they came near the temple the accused Kundan, Fateh Singh, Arvind @ Kallu and Pintoo discharged the shots indiscriminately at about 6.15 A.M. consequently the applicant and deceased Deepu sustained injuries. The applicant and the deceased Deepu were sent to the district Hospital and the FIR of this case has been lodged. According to the medical examination report of the applicant Arunesh who was medically examined on 13.10.2010 at 7.45 P.M. in District hospital Mainpuri, he was brought by Monu Thakur. According to the medical examination report he had sustained fire arms wound of entry on left side of buttock. The injury was caused by fire arm, it was kept under observation, the duration was fresh. According to the post mortem examination report which was conducted on 13.10.2010 at 3.15 P.M. the deceased had sustained fire arm wound of entry on left thigh having its exit wound. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire arm injuries. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2, Mainpuri who rejected the same on 17.9.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant has also sustained gun shot injury in the said incident, the FIR has been promptly lodged. The accused named in FIR have been exonerated and the applicant who is victim of the said incident and the first informant of this case have been made accused under the influence of accused persons who are named in the FIR and without doing the fair investigation the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant. According to the medical examination report of the applicant he had sustained gun shot injury on the left side of the buttock and injury was so serious that he was referred to the S.N. Medical Collage, Agra. On 13.10.2010 the name of the applicant has come into the light on the basis of the application given by Samant Singh, the father of the deceased. According to the allegation made in the application dated 15.10.2010, the deceased was called by the applicant and co-accused Monu, he was taken on the motorcycle by them, thereafter he has been killed and lodged a false FIR against them. The dead boy of the deceased was found as abandoned, thereafter the post mortem examination was done. During investigation the statement of Bhopal Singh and some other persons have been recorded, they made the allegation against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 10.6.2010, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that in this case the applicant and first informant Monu son of Satya Pal have committed the murder of the deceased and Monu son of Satya Pal has lodged a false FIR against four unknown persons. According to the FIR the deceased and applicant who were allegedly injured were sent to the district Hospital Mainpuri for treatment. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 13.10.2010 at 6.15 A.M. The post mortem examination of the deceased has been conducted on the same day i.e. 13.10.2010 at 3.15 P.M. but it is surprising that the applicant was medically examined in district Mainpuri on 13.10.2010 at 7.45 P.M., the duration of the injuries was fresh. The medical examination of the applicant has been done at very belated stage. It has been done after thirteen and half hours. After expiry of thirteen and half hours the injuries can not be fresh. Either the medical examination is procured document or the injuries have been subsequently manufactured. But it is admitted case that the applicant was present at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It is also surprising that on 13.10.2010 the applicant was referred to S.N. Medical Collage, Agra. The reference slip taken on admission and taken on discharge of the accused is not mentioned. The applicant was never admitted in S.N. Medical collage, Agra. Father of the deceased and other witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased was taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons, thereafter he has been killed. IN such circumstances the applicant may not be released on bail. It has also been submitted that father of the deceased moved the application on 23.10.2010 alleging therein that the co-accused Monu did the maarpeet with him. IN case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 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 in the present case the FIR has been lodged by co-accused Monu alleging therein that in the said incident the applicant and the deceased Deepu sustained gun shot injury by the applicant and all the four persons named in the FIR have been exonerated by the I.O. The application has been given by the father of the deceased on 15.10.2010 to S.P. Mainpuri alleging therein that the deceased has been killed by the applicant and co-accused Monu. The applicant has been allegedly medically examined on 13.10.2010 at 7.45 P.M., he was brought by the Monu Thankur but the duration of the injury was mentioned as fresh and on the said day the applicant was referred to S.N. Medical Collage, Agra but in the reference slip taken and discharged of the patient from the hospital has not been mentioned. At this stage, it is not proper to express any opinion of the merits of the case 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 rejected.;