Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS bail application has been jointly moved on behalf of applicants, Rajesh Kumar Singh alias Lallu Singh and Rakesh Kumar alias Raju Singh, who are involved in Case Crime No. 650 of 2010 (S.T. No. 23 of 2011) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/25/27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Chilh, District Mirzapur. Heard Mr. Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P.K. Dwivedi and Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials on record.
(2.) IT has been submitted from the side of the applicants that they are in jail respectively since 23.11.2010 and 19.11.2010. It has further been submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that there is an over -writing in the F.I.R. in the column where the date and time of the incident is mentioned. It has been pointed out that originally it was about 8.15 but it has been over -written as 17.15 evening. It has further been submitted that since 17.15 has been mentioned then there was no sense in suffixing the word 'evening'. In this regard my attention has been drawn towards the column where the time and date of report is mentioned wherein the time has been mentioned as 18.15 but no suffixing of 'evening' is there. In these circumstances it has been said that there has been a manipulation in the registration of the F.I.R. It has further been submitted from the side of the applicant that the version as given by the alleged eye witnesses does not correspond to the circumstances of the case. Drawing the attention of the court towards the facts and the site plan it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the F.I.R. the shots were fired from the right side of the deceased. It has also been submitted that all the accused had allegedly ambushed the vehicle. From perusal of the site plan it appears that they formed a semi -circle in front of the vehicle while surrounding the same and sprayed a number of shots numbering about 15 to 16. It has further been argued that but for the deceased none of the occupants of the car was injured nor any one of them suffered even a single scratch on their body. It has further been submitted with vehemence that from perusal of the post -mortem report it is clear that the bullets entered the head of the deceased from the left side and not from the right side. It has also been contended that as per the F.I.R. version itself all the shots hit the deceased when he was sitting on the driving seat and he could not get time or opportunity to come out of the car and, therefore, possibility of his turning the head to the opposite side was not there. It has also been argued that in these circumstances it was impossible that the shots fired from the right side of the deceased could have hit his left temporal region. In this background, it has further been contended that actually the complainant and the witnesses have not seen the incident and due to previous enmity, which is admitted, the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. They have said that the overwriting in the F.I.R. is just a human mistake and nothing more than that and, therefore, this cannot be given any importance. It has further been submitted that it is virtually a broad day light incident and the accused persons in a daring manner committed a crime due to Gram Pradhani enmity existing in between them since before. It has further been submitted that the victim may have tried to come out of the car and while he was attempting to escape he might have turned towards the rear portion of the car and at that time the bullets hit his head.
(3.) REPLYING to such arguments learned counsel for the applicant said that in fact some unknown person killed the deceased at about 8.15 P.M. He further states that it was middle of November and by 8.15 P.M./ it was quite dark and it was not possible for any one to see the assailants. He further states that from the version of the prosecution it is clear that the victim could not get time to come out of the car or even to move and he was killed inside his car while sitting on the driving seat.;