- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Neeraj with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 71 of 2005 under Sections 364, 302,394,411 I. P. C. P. S. Rendhar district Jalaun.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that in the present case the F. I. R. has been lodged by one Omang on 28-6-2005 at about 9. 30 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28-6-2005 at about 7. 30 a. m. , the distance of the police station was about 8 km from the alleged place of occurrence. THE F. I. R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Ramesh, Atul and Umesh, under Section 364 I. P. C. but during investigation the case has been converted under Sections 364,302,394 and 411 I. P. C. It is alleged that the first informant alongwith his father Mahendra Pandey was going to Naveli on a motor cycle to make a telephone call when they reached near the house of one Lallu Gupta, the applicant and other co- accused also came from the back side on the motor cycle, at about 7. 30 a. m. the applicant and his father surrounded by the applicant and other co-accused persons and they were dragged and beaten by use of butt of the country made pistol and dandas. THEreafter they had taken away to the deceased to commit his murder, his motor cycle was also taken by them. THE alleged occurrence was witnessed by Shyam Sunder and Heera and alleged offence was committed due to old enmity. Subsequently, Mahendra Pandey, father of the first informant, was murdered and his post-mortem examination was done on 29- 6-2005 at 9. 30 a. m. According to the post-mortem report four ante-mortem injuries were found. Injury No. 1 was lacerated wound 1. 5" x 1/4" x skin deep over right forehead. Injury No. 2 was gun shot wound, 3. 5" x 1. 5" x cavity deep over 1. 5" above collar bone, over back of chest. Injury No. 3 was contusion 9. 5" x 2. 5" over left of occipital region. Injury No. 4 was wound around intate wound blackening and charring seen over the wound 4. 5" x 3. 5" with inverted margins, Injury No. 5 was both hands clinch and pale and the first informant was also medically examined on 29-6-2005 at 8. 30 a. m. according to medical examination report he had received 3 visible injuries and one complain of pain. THE injuries was radish in colour and sear was present. Heard Sri J. S. Sengar, Sri Ajeet Kumar Solanki learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A. G. A. and Sri M. D. Misra and Sri U. C. Misra learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant; (I) That the story set up in the F. I. R. is absolutely improper and unnatural. The deceased was a hardcore criminal having dozens of criminal cases against him, the deceased was abducted and subsequently killed by unknown persons but on account of enmity and village party bandi the applicant and others co- accused persons have been falsely implicated. (II) That the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful, all the witnesses are highly interested and partisan. There is no independent witness of locality to support the prosecution story. Had it been any intention of the accused to commit his murder, he would have been murdered on the spot instead of taking pain for abducting him on motorcycle. (III) That the dead-body of the victim was found in Lahudi Lagampur in a field of one Har Charan Sharma, which falls under the jurisdiction of P. S. Lahar district Bhind (M. P), its inquest report was also prepared by the police of Lahar, the real brother of the deceased namely Krishnanand Pandey is the witness of the report. (IV) That the prosecution story has not been corroborated by the medical evidence, one lacerated wound, one gunshot wound having its corresponding exit wound with blackening and charring were found to show that the deceased died due to gunshot injury and the first informant has received all the simple injuries by hard and blunt object. (V) That the arrest of the applicant shown by the I. O. in the night of 30-6-2005 at about 11. 35 p. m. from a canal chauraha and in the company of co-accused Ramesh and Ravindra Kumar Dixit riding on the same motor cycle, which was looted from the possession of the deceased, is absolutely false and planted and recovery of 315 bore country made pistol alongwith four live cartridges have been shown from the possession of the applicant. (VI) That after the alleged F. I. R. the I. O. proceeded to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of some formal witnesses and the statement of Dheeraj Pandey and Shyam Sunder Pandey, they stated that they have received information in the village then proceeded to the place of occurrence and claimed to have seen all the accused persons including the applicant, their statements are highly unreliable because they have not made any attempt to save the life of the deceased and they are chance witness also. The I. O. recorded the statement of many witnesses belonging to good family, in case he is released on bail, he shall not temper with the evidence. (VII) That there is no direct evidence to show that the deceased was murdered by the applicant and others co-accused persons. The dead-body was not recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspension. (VIII) That the co-accused Atul and Umesh have been released on bail by this Court on 6-1-2006 in criminal misc. bail application No. 16943 of 2005 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case because all the applicant is on the same footing with the above mention co-accused persons, therefore, he is also entitled for bail.
(3.) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant by submitting; (I) That the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light at 7. 30 a. m. on 28-6-2005, its F. I. R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 9. 30 a. m. , the distance of the police station was about 8 km, the F. I. R. was lodged under Section 364 I. P. C. because the deceased was abducted by the applicant and others co-accused persons for the purpose of committing his murder, first of all, the first informant and the deceased was beaten, the first informant is an injured witness, his presence cannot be disbelieved at all but subsequently, the dead-body was recovered form the field which shows that the deceased was murdered by the applicant and others co-accused persons because he was taken away by them. (II) That the stolen motor cycle of the deceased was also recovered from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused on 30-6-2005, and it is also an additional evidence against the applicant to show his involvement in the present case. (III) That according to the medical examination report of the first informant sears were found and according to the prosecution version the first information was pillion rider on the motorcycle, which was driven by the deceased and the motor cycle was forcible stopped and the deceased and the first informant were beaten by the applicant and others. The sear was caused by silencer of the motor cycle, which also corroborates that the prosecution story. The place of occurrence from the house of the deceased was only 1 km. The first informant went to the police station to lodge the F. I. R. Nakal Rapat No. 10 at 9. 30 a. m. dated 28-6-2005 P. S. Rendhar shows that the injures of the first informant were examined at the police station which has been clearly mentioned in the G. D. which proves the genuineness of the injuries. (IV) That statement of Krishnanand Pandey, brother of the deceased, was recorded on 28-6-2005. The statement of Jitendra Tiwari was recorded, he said that the deceased was taken by the applicant and his father, who were on motorcycle, towards Kachar, therefore, the applicant is the main accused and he is not entitled to get any benefit of bail granted to Atul and Umesh on 6-1-2006 the order in which the case of the applicant has been distinguished with the case of the co-accused where the applicant was treated as the main accused. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond and temper with the evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case the F. I. R. was promptly lodged, the first informant is the injured witness, the deceased was accompanied by the applicant and others thereafter he was murdered and dead-body was recovered. The case of the co-accused Atual and Umesh who has been released on bail by this Court on 6-1-2006, has been distinguished by the order itself, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the co-accused Atul and Umesh and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the applicant is not entitled for any bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application rejected. .;