Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Ansar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Jani, district Meerut.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Rohit Kumar on 10.4.2006 at 4.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.4.2005 at about 2.30 a.m. It is alleged that the alleged occurrence was committed by six unknown miscreants alleging therein that in the night of 9/10.4.2006 at about 2.30 a.m. six miscreants armed with country made pistol at the Kolhu of the deceased they made query from the labourer in the location of the deceased. THEreafter they came near the deceased caused five or six fire arm injuries on his person, the miscreants were identified in the generator light. THEreafter, the F.I.R. has been lodged. During investigation the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the witnesses. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received 10 ante mortem injuries. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant : 1. That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The naming of the applicant as an accused by the witness during investigation is afterthought. 2. That the applicant was arrested by the Police. He was shown to the witnesses. Thereafter he was put up for identification and was identified by the witnesses Jalsoran and the first informant himself. 3.That the petitioner was taken in the police custody/remand and on his pointing out recovery of S.B.B.L. gun has been shown. The recovery was planted. It was not supported by any independent witness. 4.That during investigation evidence of extra judicial confession was concocted by the Investigating Officer because he has not confessed before any person. 5.That the applicant was having no motive to commit the alleged offence. 6.That the applicant is a man of peace. He is innocent. Therefore, he may be released on bail. In view of the above contention of the learned counsel for the applicant the learned A.G.A. submits : I. That in the present case F.I.R. has been lodged in the same night within two hours. The first informant was not known to the applicant and others co-accused persons by name that is why the naming of the applicant and other co-accused persons was not disclosed in the F.I.R. II. That the F.I.R. was lodged in so hurry that there was no occasion to have discussed with other witnesses. III. That on the same day the statement of the witness Radhey Shyam was recorded and he has given explanation not to disclose the name of the applicant to the first informant before lodging the F.I.R. IV. That the applicant was correctly identified by the witness Jal Soran, first informant, and at the pointing out of the applicant one S.B.B.L. gun was recovered. The witness Ashraf Tahir stated before the Investigating Officer that he has made extra juridical confession before them. Some other statements were also recorded by the Investigating Officer showing involvement of the applicant. V. That the applicant was arrested and he was kept baparda. He was not shown to any witness before identification. VI. That the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the applicant is having criminal antecedent. In case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and that the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged in the same night of the occurrence within two hours, the name of the applicant has been disclosed on the same day by the witnesses, applicant has been properly identified by two witnesses at the pointing out of the applicant S.B.B.L. gun has been recovered and there is the evidence of extra judicial confession and the applicant is having criminal antecedent and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this bail application is rejected.;