VINOD PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.M.N. Singh learned Senior Counsel, on the bail prayer of the present applicant, in Crime No. 83/04, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Najirabad, District Kanpur Nagar and learned AGA as well as Sri S.C. Verma and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan learned Counsel in opposition.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He contended that in this case no body was named in the FIR lodged by the informant Ajai Shankar Shukla. In the said FIR he has mentioned that there was a single accused who shot dead the deceased. It was at the Chemist shop of Ajai Shankar Shukla, that the incident is alleged to have taken place. He contended that subsequently due to enmity another application was taken from Neeru Mishra and in that application the role of shooting has been assigned to the present applicant. The aforesaid Neeru Misra is a relative of the deceased and is said to be present at the spot but he did not lodge any FIR and according to his application he made a telephone call to the residence of the deceased at Farrukhabad after the incident. He further contended that in this case charge -sheet was submitted against the applicant mentioning the fact that from unknown reliable sources the complicity of the accused has come to the light. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court on the said charge -sheet where it is mentioned that from secret investigation the complicity of the accused came to the light. Learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that the first informant, the owner of the Chemist shop, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC tried to support the statement of Neeru Mishra and stated that there were two persons and both of them had fired at the deceased and thus assigned the same role to the present applicant as that of co -accused. He further contended that the other accused person Deepak Shukla has already been granted bail by this Court. He further contended that no identification of the applicant was got done from the informant Ajai Shankar Shukla, owner of the Chemist Shop. He contended that the applicant does not have any criminal history nor wanted in any other case. He lastly submitted that the father of the deceased Vijai Dubey namely Vimal Chandra Dubey was an accused in a murder case of the father of the applicant and therefore, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned AGA as well learned Counsel for the informant contended that the present applicant has shot dead the deceased and the incident was witnessed by Neeru Mishra and others. They further contended that the applicant have got motive to commit the murder of the deceased. They contended that there was litigation going on between the rival parties and therefore, the complicity of the applicant is proved.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the rival sides. It is not disputed in this case that the applicant is not named in the FIR and no identification of the applicant was got done from the informant, the owner of the Chemist Shop, where the incident is alleged to have taken place. It is also not disputed that Neeru Mishra who claimed himself to be an eye -witness and relative of the deceased did not carry the deceased to the hospital nor lodged the FIR. It is also not disputed that in the charge -sheet it is mentioned that from unknown sources the complicity of the applicant has come to the light. It is also not disputed that the Chemist informant in his statement has stated that both the accused persons had shot dead the deceased. It is also not disputed that the reference of Motor Cycle and presence of another assailant at the spot is not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Chemist informant and that the co -accused has already been released on bail.;