- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J This application has been filed by the applicant Bhola alias Karunesh and Ramesh Chand with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 211 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I. P. C. P. S. Bharthana District Etawah.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that an F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Chandra Prakash alias Kallu at P. S. Bharthana on 23-9-2005 at 10. 00 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 23- 9-2005 at about 6. 30 a. m. THE F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicants and co-accused Satyendra alias Pappu, Bhoora alias Varunesh and Khem Singh. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Satyendra alias Pappu and Kham Chand armed with 12 bore gun and co-accused Bhoora alias Varunesh armed with 312 bore rifle came at the house of the first informant and asked to file a compromise in the murder case of Pappu in which they were sent to jail but it was replied by the first informant and other co-accused persons in negative, then the applicants and other accused persons discharged the shot towards the first informant and his other family members consequently Km. Sheela sister of the first informant and Ram Prakash alias Titu, brother of the first informant received injuries, Km Sheela died on the spot. THE injured Ram Prakash alias Titu became seriously injured. THEreafter an F. I. R. was lodged but subsequently injured Ram Prakash alias Titu also died. Heard Sri U. C. Misra and Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. and Sri P. S. Yadav learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants : (I) That there was no motive and intention for the applicants to commit the murder of Km. Sheela and Ram Prakash alias Titu. (II) That according to the prosecution version the I. O. reached at the place of occurrence and then he recorded the statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , his statement was not recorded at the police station immediately after lodging the F. I. R. but in the case diary time of reaching the I. O. at the place of occurrence has not been mentioned and nothing has been mentioned in respect of the treatment provided to injured Ram Prakash alias Titu immediately after the occurrence even the name of the persons who have taken to him to the police station has not been disclosed. The name of the hospital was also not disclosed and no medical examination report of Ram Prakash is available. The only paper available on record is the medical report of G. G. Medical Institute and Research Center in which the date of his admission is mentioned as 26-9-2005 at 3. 45 a. m. there is cutting and overwriting also the deceased Ram Prakash alias Titu was discharged on 28-9-2004 at 1. 05 a. m. According to the medical examination report he had received one gunshot injury, lacerated wound on the mid portion of the head, which was irregular deep upto skull bone bleeding present and duration of the injury was not mentioned, which belies the whole prosecution story because there was no explanation of the period in between 23-9-2005 at 6. 30 a. m. to 26-9-2005 at 3. 45 wherein the injured Ram Prakash remained. (III) That the prosecution story is inconsistence with the post-mortem examination report. According to the post-mortem examination report Km. Sheela had received only one fire-arm wound of entry from that wound a metallic piece was recovered which suggest that the injury was caused by rifle and not by the gun and the medical examination report of deceased Ram Prakash shows that he had also received only gun shot wound of entry, it has not been specifically alleged as to who caused the injury to the deceased Km. Sheela and the deceased Ram Prakash. (IV) That the small and large intestine was full with feacal matter and half full of gases which goes to suggest that she died after mid night. According to the post-mortem examination report of Ram Prakash one metallic body was recovered which shows that it was caused by rifle and not by gun. The cause of death was septicemia, the death occurred due to the negligence of the doctor. (V) That the F. I. R. is delayed which was lodged after great thought and consultation. (VI) That the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because none of them is injured. (VII) That in the F. I. R. of the murder of Pappu, the applicants are not named as accused and the deceased were not the witnesses of that case. In the murder case of Pappu eye-witness have already been examined before the trial Court prior the alleged occurrence.
(3.) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant by submitting: (1) That the brother of the first informant was already murdered and there was strong motive to commit the alleged offence because the accused were pressurizing to the first informant and other to file the compromise. In the present case the F. I. R. was promptly lodged and there is no delay in lodging the F. I. R. The first informant and others are the eye-witness. The alleged occurrence had taken place at the house of the first informant. In the present case two persons have lost their lives, but the deceased Km. Sheela had received fire-arm injury who died on the spot The deceased Ram Prakash had received injuries and after receiving injuries his condition became serious. He was taken to district hospital to Etawah then to Medical College, Gwalior from there he was referred to G. G. Medical Institute Agra where he was admitted on 26-9-2004 that from the contents of large intestine no inference can be drawn about the time of commission of the alleged offence. Both the deceased have received fire-arm injuries. IT cannot be said that the deceased had received injuries cause by rifle and not by gun. (2) That the family member of the applicants have committed murder of Pappu on 25-3-2004 at 7. 00 p. m. its F. I. R. was lodged on 25-3-2004 at 9. 30 p. m. against Bhola alias Karunesh and others. (3) That there was strong motive to the applicants to commit the murder of the deceased. The presence of the witness at the place of occurrence was natural. IT is further contended that in case the applicants are released on bail they will not permit any witness to give evidence and they may commit the murder of the first informant also. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that in the present case two persons have been murdered and prior that one Pappu brother of the present deceased was murdered by the family members of the applicants, it is broad day light incident, the gravity of the offence is too much and without touching the merits of the case the prayer of the applicant to release him on bail is refused.;