RAVINDRA Singh, J. - (1.) This application has been filed by the applicant Mehmood Ali @ Mehmood Rafi with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 549 of 2005, under Sections 302, 504 and 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali, District Rampur. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Manju Ali at Police Station Kotwali on 7-12-2005 at 3. 25 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 7-12-2005 at about 1. 30 p. m. , the distance of the Police Station was about 1/2 kl. mt. from the place of the occurrence. The F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Sakir Ali, Nasir Ali. It is alleged that the deceased Sahab, his brother and sister were living at the house of the first informant because their father had already died. The deceased was living at his father's sister's house. The applicant and other co-accused persons are neighbours of the first informant, they were trying to take possession of the land of first informant and they were constructing the pillars. The deceased had objected them one day prior to alleged occurrence. On the day of the alleged occurrence the applicant and other co-accused persons again started construction of the pillars. The deceased objected forcefully from the roof, the first informant also objected to same. The deceased forcefully stated that he would not permit any construction till he was alive then the applicant and two other co-accused persons came on their roof having the country made pistols and by extending a threat discharged the shots. Consequently the deceased received injuries and fell down on the roof. The alleged incident was witnessed by first informant and other persons. Due to firing done by the applicant and other co- accused persons a panic was created in the locality, the people entered into their houses and closed the doors and windows. Thereafter showing the country made pistols they hurled abuses and extending the threat. The deceased in a serious condition was taken to the hospital were he died under the treatment. Thereafter the first informant went to the Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. 3. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: (1) That the F. I. R. of this case is too much delayed, it was lodged after great thought and consultation because the distance of the Police Station was only 1/2 kl. mt. from the place of the occurrence. The F. I. R. was lodged on 7-12-2005 at 3. 25 p. m. whereas the time of the occurrence was 1. 30 p. m. on 7-12- 2005. The F. I. R. was lodged after great thought and consultation; (2) That there was no motive and intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence; (3) That the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable. According to the prosecution version, the applicant and other co-accused persons have discharged the shots from their roof and the deceased had received the injuries on his roof. Both the places are shown in the site plan as 'a' and 'b'. (4) That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post-mortem examination report because it is alleged that the applicant and two other co-accused persons discharged shots by the country made pistols and according to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had received four injuries in which injury No. 1 was multiple wound of entry of fire-arm pellets on right side of scalp and right side of his face each wound measuring. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. , no blackening and tattooing was found, injury No. 2 was abraded contusion on the outer aspect of right upper arm, injury No. 3 was abrasion above right nipple, injury No. 4 was abrasion over right clevicle. The injuries were not caused as alleged by the prosecution and there is no explanation of injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and it has not been specifically alleged that whose shot hit the deceased and caused injury No. 1; (5) That the presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful, they are brothers, sister, uncle and Bua of the deceased, there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story; (6) That at the time of the alleged occurrence, the applicant was not present there, he was offering Namaz in the Mosque alongwith other persons, number of persons including Sahadat, Haseen Bachchan and Nanna have filed their affidavits to this effect; (7) That the applicant is innocent and all the three brothers are in jail. There is no one in his family to look after his family affairs. The applicant is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. In reply to the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant was having a strong motive to commit the alleged offence, the deceased had been murdered only because he had objected the accused persons not to take illegal possession of the land by constructing the pillars but the applicant and other co- accused persons discharged the shots from their roof to the deceased who was on the roof of the first informant's house. The applicant and other co-accused persons have committed the murder of a young boy aged about 16 years in a broad day light at about 1. 30 p. m. inside the village, its F. I. R. was promptly lodged at the Police Station on the same day at 3. 25 p. m. There was no delay in lodging the F. I. R. because the first of all deceased was taken to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries, thereafter the F. I. R. was lodged. The alleged occurrence has been witnessed by the natural witnesses. Due to act done by the applicant and other co-accused persons a panic was created in the locality, the people had closed their doors and windows of their houses and the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post-mortem examination report because deceased had received multiple wound of entry of fire-arm on the right side of scalp and right side of face each wound was measuring. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. , it may be caused by firing done from a long distance by discharging more than one shot. The other three injuries which are abraded contusion or abrasion may be caused by the fire-arm also and there is no infirmity in the prosecution story as well as in the site plan and the presence of the witnesses at the place of the occurrence is highly natural. In the circumstances, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Therefore he may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and after perusing the record, it appears that the applicant the other co-accused persons are involved in murder of a young boy 16 years of age, the alleged murder had taken place in the broad day light inside the village abadi, the F. I. R. has been promptly lodged, due to act done by the applicant and other co-accused persons a panic was created in the locality. In such circumstances and for a fair trial, the applicant is not entitled for bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. .;