- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Anees Ahmad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Puramufti District Kaushambi.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Kanchan Singh on 14- 2-2006 at 2. 30 p. m. at P. S. Puramufti in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14-2-2006 at about 12. 30 p. m. THE applicant and other co-accused are named in the F. I. R. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons were hiding themselves in an agricultural field. THE applicant and other co-accused namely Samun Ahmad, Riyaz Ahmad armed with country made pistol, co-accused Haseen Ahmad and Ashraf armed with rifle, came out from the field and surrounded the deceased and on the exhortation the co-accused Riyaz Ahmad, co-accused Haseen Ahmad discharged the shots by rifle which hit the deceased. Consequently, he fell down. THEreafter, 3 or 4 shots were discharged by the miscreants. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has received 8 injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 were fire-arm wounds of entry and remaining 4 injures were exit wounds. Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, Sri R. K. Tiwari and Sri D. P. Mishra learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Sudhir Solanki and Sri R. P. Singh learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the F. I. R. specific role of causing the injuries is assigned to the co-accused Haseen Ahmad. Thereafter, 3 or 4 shots were discharged, but it has not been specified that who discharged the shots and the nature of injuries shows that except injury No. 1 all the gunshot wounds of entry were caused by the same weapon i. e. rifle. Only injury No. 1 can be caused by 12 bore fire-arm and according to the F. I. R. the applicant and 2 other co- accused persons were armed with country made pistol. It has not been specified that who caused the injury No. 1. It is further submitted that the presence of the witnesses on the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. The dead-body of the deceased was found at a lonely place, thereafter, the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged after great thought and consultation. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to partibandi, therefore, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad day light. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The deceased has received 4 gunshot wounds of entry and 4 wounds of exit. IN case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence and the gravity of the offence is too much, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant, the seriousness of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Bail application rejected. .;