Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Virendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 395, 397, 427, 34, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Paniyara district Mahrajganj.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Kamlesh Yadav at P.S. Paniyara on 2.2.2006 at 9.50 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1.2.2006 at about 9.00 p.m., alleging therein that the marriage of the first informant was settled with Km. Maya, daughter of late Mata Badal. THE date of the marriage was 1.2.2006. On 1.2.2006, the marriage party was preparing for dwarpooja and proceeded towards the door of late Mata Badal alongwith road light and band party. THE baraties were dancing and singing, when the barat reached in front of house of the applicant, the applicant and other co-accused assaulted the baraties and the applicant discharged the shot by firearm from a very close range which hit at the temporal region of the deceased Dinesh, consequently, he fell down, other baraties including Amarjeet, Rajman also sustained injuries caused by lathi and danda blows and the motor vehicles were also damaged by the applicant and other co-accused persons and looted a sum of Rs. 50,000 cash, ornaments and cloths. THE applicant and co-accused Pappu Singh having firearm hurled the abuses and extended the threats to the baraties, due to this incident the panic was created. THE deceased Dinesh was taken to the Sadar Hospital in an injured condition where he was declared dead. THE other injured were also medically examined there. Due to this unhappening the marriage could not be solemnized. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received one firearm wound of entry near the left ear. It was having blackening and charring. Its exit wound was injury No. 2. Other injured namely Rajman and Amarjeet had received injuries caused by the hard and blunt object. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, senior advocate assisted by Sri Rajul Bhargava and Sri Sudhir Singh learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that : (i) The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence even the applicant was not known to the first informant prior to the alleged offence. The naming of the applicant is after thought. (ii) The applicant was having no motive and intention to commit the alleged offence. (iii) No looted property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant of at his pointing out. (iv) The applicant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry, because the applicant's mother is sitting village pradhan of the village continuing for the last 3 occasions. One Surya Nath Yadav had contested the election of the pradhan, but he has lost the election. The family of late Mata Badal was supporter of Surya Nath Yadav, at his instance the applicant has been falsely implicated. (v) The prosecution has not come with clean hands and suppressed the real facts, because the alleged incident has been committed in some other manner. (vi) Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. the witnesses stated that no looted jewellary or cash has been taken. It was wrongly mentioned by the first informant. (vii) At the time of alleged occurrence baraties were under the heavy influence of liquor and on account of intoxication a bickering took place between the baraties and under intoxication of liquor some baraties fired which hit the deceased. (viii) The deceased was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Gorakhpur, by a car and he was declared dead on 1.2.2006 at about 11.00 p.m. The distance was about 35 kms. It is not clear that as to when the first informant got the F.I.R. typed, which is also mystery. (ix) The F.I.R. is ante timed. It was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report. The applicant is man of peace loving. He is not a previous convict. He is having no criminal antecedents, therefore, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. submits that specific role of causing injuries by firearm is assigned to the applicant and due to act done by the applicant the marriage of the first informant could not be solemnized. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged within 50 minutes of the alleged occurrence. The injured witnesses have supported the prosecution story. The alleged occurrence had witnessed by so many other persons also. There was no reason of false implication of the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The firearm wound of entry was having blackening and charring. It was caused from a close range as mentioned in the F.I.R. the applicant is main accused, therefore, he may not be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. the role of the applicant, the seriousness of the offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.;