Vinod Prasad - (1.) -The applicant Rameshwar through the present bail application has prayed for his release on bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C., in Crime No. 276/05, under Section 302/506, I.P.C., P.S. Rura, district Kanpur Dehat.
(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant in brief are that Sobaran Singh father of Pravendra Kumar the informant had won the election of village Pradhan in the recent past, defeating Jai Karan alias Pappu. Because of the election rivalry Shiv Singh cousin brother of the informant was threatened by the said Jai Karan on 29.8.2005, that he will not allow Sobaran Singh to function as Pradhan. On 9.10.2005, the informant alongwith his father Sobaran Singh had gone to sell his wheat crop to Roora on their Tractor No. U. P. 78-B9895 driven by Chhotey Lal. While returning they purchased 20 potato bags. THE informant alongwith his father and two other persons Ram Swaroop and Pahunchi Lal were sitting on the tractor trolley above the potato bags. When they reached on the turning of Teli Bagh at about 6 p.m. then the accused, who were four in number including Jai Karan alias Pappu and the applicant Rameshwar, all of a sudden appeared from Bazra field armed with country made pistol. On the instigation of the unknown assailant who had covered his face, rest of the three named accused persons Jai Karan, Rameshwar (present applicant) and Ravindra fired at Sobaran Singh who sustained firearm injuries and dwindled towards the driver seat on tractor and died on the spot. THE assailants made their escape good. Chhotey Lal tractor driver had also sustained two lacerated injuries in the said incident. Praveendra Kumar the informant scribed the F.I.R. and lodged it at P.S. Roora on 9.10.2005 at 9.30 p.m. THE post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.10.2005 (Annexure-2), which indicates that the deceased had sustained two fire arm wounds of entry and a fire arm wound of exit. One of the firearm wounds of entry had blackening. On the said factual matrix, the applicant has prayed for his bail through this bail application. I have heard Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant on the bail prayer of the present applicant and learned A.G.A. in opposition. Learned counsel for the informant Sri Suresh Singh Yadav is not present even though the list is revised. Sri G. S. Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the incident had taken place in the dead hour of the night and no body had seen the incident and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that the post mortem report does not support the prosecution version. He contended that as the deceased was sitting on the tractor trolley above 20 bags of potato, therefore, he cannot receive the injuries as was found in the post mortem report. He further contended that the tractor driver Chhotey Lal sustained two lacerated wound on the left knee joint for which there is no explanation. He further contended that no blood was found on the tractor trolley or on the potato bags nor any such blood was recovered from it. He further contended that the deceased had received only two gun shot wounds of entry and the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was fired at by three accused from a close proximity. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. He further submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal history and he had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. He has been implicated only because of the reason that he was the supporter of the rival faction of the deceased. He also submitted that the applicant was arrested on 11.10.2005 and since then he is in jail. He further submitted that in the present case the place of incident is not fixed and the presence of the first informant and the other witnesses is doubtful as the assailants who were four in number armed with country-made pistol would not have left the son of the deceased to be the informant and witness of the incident against them and had the informant been present, he would certainly have been done to death. He further contended that though injured witness Chhotey Lal had gone to the Police Station but his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer even though his injuries on the knee were simple in nature. He further contended that body of the deceased was found lying on the field of Rajpal and not on tractor as alleged by the prosecution and no blood was recovered from the field also.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. on the other hand contended that in this case the murder had taken place because of the election rivalry and the applicant is said to be one of the main shooter, who is named in the F.I.R. He further contended that there was no reason for false implication of the applicant and at his pointing out one .315 bore country-made pistol was also recovered. I have considered the submissions raised by both sides. In this case the deceased had received only two gun shot wounds of entry and the third wound is a wound of exit. No motive has been alleged by the prosecution so far as the present applicant is concerned. It is further pcrceptible that no blood was found either on the tractor trolley or on the place of incident at all. From the perusal of the case diary it does not transpire that any blood was recovered from both the places. It is also clear that but for the deceased no other person was assaulted and the Section 161, Cr. P.C. statement of the injured was not recorded at the earliest.;