Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Gyanendra Pathak, Learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that, as alleged, the occurrence took place on 3.9.2010 at mid night and the first information report was lodged on the same day, i.e. 3.9.2010 at 8.30 a.m. The present first information report was lodged by wife of the deceased, who is not an eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel vehemently contends that though, as alleged in the first information report, Satya Raj Singh, brother of the complainant was present at the time of incident along with one Raj Kumar Singh, cousin brother of the complainant but none of them went to lodge the first information report and the story set up by the prosecution is that after the incident, both of them went and informed the complainant regarding the incident, who then with the family members including brother went to lodge the first information report, as it comes out from the statement of eye witness Raj Kumar Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE post mortem report on the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.9.2010 and only one ante mortem injury of fire arm was found. Learned counsel submits that in the present case none had seen the occurrence and when the body of the deceased was found in the morning, his wife went to lodge the first information report along with other members of the family. Learned counsel further submits that as alleged in the first information report, the deceased was sleeping along with complainant's brother Satya Raj Singh and cousin brother Raj Kumar Singh and was awaken by the applicant and others who asked him to accompany with them to witness dance. As alleged, on the way, this incident took place. It is contended by the Learned Counsel that there was no occasion for the deceased to accompany the applicant as, admittedly, they were on inimical terms and the deceased could have been very well done to death at the same very place. It is submitted that the occurrence being of mid night, a doubt is created on the presence of the witnesses. It is also submitted that the deceased had criminal antecedent of a murder case, which was pending and had several enemies. The applicant is in jail since 4.9.2010 and has no previous criminal history, as averred in para 22 of the bail application. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood that the applicant would evade the proceedings of the trial.
(3.) GYANENDRA Pathak, Learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.;