Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Chhotey Lal alias Shyam Babu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2006 under Sections 396, 302, 411 and 120B, I.P.C. P.S. Chhibramau district Kannauj.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sachin Singh at P.S. Chhibramau on 26.1.2006 at 5.00 a.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 25/26.1.2006 at about 1.00 a.m. THE F.I.R. was lodged under Section 396, I.P.C. by the brother of the deceased against six unknown miscreants. It is alleged that the unknown miscreants committed dacoity at the house of the brother of the first informant in which Deepak Singh, brother of the first informant, has lost the life. THE alleged occurrence was witnessed by the wife and daughter of the deceased. The first informant is not an eye-witness and he is living separately. The names of the applicant and other co-accused persons have been disclosed by the wife and daughter of the deceased on the same day in their statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The deceased had received three ante-mortem injuries. Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant : 1. That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after four hours of the alleged occurrence. He has been named by Smt. Archana Singh, wife of the deceased and her daughter in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The applicant has not been named by the first informant in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. 2. That no looted property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. During investigation the case has been converted under Sections 394, 302, 411 and 120B, I.P.C. only because the co-accused Banti alias Vivek Chaturvedi, was having illicit relation with the daughter of the deceased. The applicant was residing as a tenant after five or six houses in the same colony where the alleged occurrence had taken place. He was very well known to the wife and daughter of the deceased even then he was not named in the F.I.R. 3.That the applicant was very well known to the wife and daughter of the deceased even then he did not take any precaution to conceal his identity. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his absconding and tempering with the evidence. Therefore, he may be released on bail. In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. : I. That the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the brother of the deceased who was living in another locality. He was not an eye-witness and there was no occasion of having discussion with the wife and daughter of the deceased whereas it is clearly stated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. that the alleged occurrence was witnessed by the wife and daughter of the deceased. The name of the applicant has been disclosed on the same day of the F.I.R. by Smt. Archana Singh, wife of the deceased and Premika, daughter of the deceased, and no reason of his false implication has been shown. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.;