- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Babu Lal @ Rappu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2006, under Section 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Chetganj, District Varanasi.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Om Prakash on 6-4- 2006 at 9. 40 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 6-4-2006 at about 9. 00 p. m. THE F. I. R. was lodged against the applicant and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that the first informant has having a shop of medicine, the applicant and other co-accused persons were purchasing the medicines from the shop on the credit. THE first informant and his son deceased Ravi Kumar Singh had demanded that money but the applicant and other co- accused persons became annoyed. Due to this reason on 6-4-2006 at about 9. 00 p. m. the deceased was called from the shop by the co- accused Arvind and Amit. THE applicant alongwith his gunner Babu Sahab @ Jung Bahadur Singh was standing in the land in front of his house, as soon the deceased reached there, he was abused by the applicant but it was objected by him, then the applicant and co-accused Arvind caused fire-arm injuries on the person of the deceased. Consequently he fell down, he was taken to the Haritage hospital where he was succumbed to his injuries. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received three injuries in which injury No. 1 was fire arm wound of entry on the right side of the chest, its exit wound was injury No. 2 and injury No. 3 was contused abrasion on the chest. Cause of death was due to fire-arm injuries on the chest, lungs and lever. Heard Sri R. S. Ram and Jagat Mohan Bind, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night, no source of light has been disclosed in the F. I. R. The first informant was not eye-witness and the deceased was not called by the applicant from the shop. The deceased was called from the shop by the co-accused Arvind and Amit. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence because according to the F. I. R. the applicant and co-accused Arvind caused injury but according to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received only one gun shot wound of entry, the second injury was exit wound and the injury No. 3 was contused abrasion but it has not been specified that who caused fire-arm wound of entry. There is a cross version of the alleged incident. The cross version is that on 6-4-2006 at about 9. 00 p. m. the deceased alongwith Bablu and Vivek Kumar @ Vikas came to the house of the applicant to kill co-accused Arvind who was called by them and they fired at him in which he sustained injury at his right thing but in order to save the life of private gunner of the applicant discharged the shot by rifle, consequently the deceased received injury. After this, more than 18 persons came to the house of the applicant and his house was set at fire and damaged the articles kept therein and they misbehaved with the inmates of the house and they caused injuries also, it was published in the daily news papers but the co- accused Arvind to save his life, left his house and went to his Nanihal in District Ghazipur where he was medically examined. The cross version of the F. I. R. was not registered by Police Station concerned. Thereafter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved which was allowed and the F. I. R. was registered in Case Crime No. 60-A of 2006, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I. P. C. and Case Crime No. 60-B of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I. P. C. The injuries received by the co-accused Arvind have not been explained. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. It has been wrongly alleged that the applicant is a criminal and in both cross cases also the charge-sheet has been submitted.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant is the main accused who was having a strong motive to commit the alleged offence, the alleged occurrence had taken place in a city area, co-accused Arvind Kumar had not received any injury in that incident, he was not medically examined at Varanasi on the date of the alleged incident or immediately thereafter but he was medically examined on 14-4-2006 at District Hospital, Ghazipur, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapon and were kept under observation but it was found that the injury was caused by fire-arm and the injuries were simple in nature, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such medical examination report of co-accused Arvind Kumar. The applicant is the man of criminal nature. IN case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, and learned A. G. A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.;