- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Deepak Verma with prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 290 of 2006 under Sections 302 I. P. C. , Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura. The prosecution story in brief is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Purushottam Das Bhatia on 11-6-2006 at about 11. 45 p. m. in respect of an incident which I had occurred on 11-6-2006 at about 9. 30 p. m. The F. I. R. has been lodged against applicant and two unknown miscreants alleging therein that the applicant was living as a tenant at the house of one Mahendra Singh for the last three years but prior to 20 days of the alleged occurrence he alongwith his family members shifted to their newly constructed house. Even then he was generally visiting the Mohalla of first informant because he was a criminal minded person. The deceased Manoj objected the applicant for his visits in the Mohalla. That is why the applicant was having enmity with the deceased and one week prior to the alleged incident he had extended threat to the deceased for facing dire consequences. On 11-6-2006 the deceased alongwith his wife Smt. Mamta Bhatia came on the Sindhi Dharmashala on a motorcycle, the deceased came out from the Dharmashala where the applicant was waiting. The applicant hurled abuses and discharged shot by a country-made pistol which hit the chest of the deceased. After receiving injury the deceased fell down. The first informant also came out from the Dharmashala and saw the deceased in an injured condition and the applicant was running away from the place of occurrence. The applicant was chased by him but by riding on a motorcycle he escaped from there in the company of two unknown miscreants. The deceased was taken to the district hospital from where he was referred to Maheshwari Hospital where he was declared dead. Thereafter the dead-body was taken to the district hospital and informant went to the Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased received one firearm wound of entry which was having blackening and tattoing.
(2.) HEARD Sri J. S. Sengar and Sri Sudhir Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. and Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false and concocted and highly improbable. The presence of the first informant at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of the night and no source of light has been disclosed in the F. I. R. and the applicant is not a man of bad character. There was no complaint made by any body of the Mohalla where the applicant was residing and even according to the prosecution version the first informant had not seen the manner in which the injury was caused to the deceased. He saw the applicant in running condition from the place of occurrence. It is a hit and run affair. Somebody came in the dark hours of the night and caused injury on the person of the deceased and ran away. The real assailant could not be identified and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The F. I. R. of this case is ante timed. It was written as alleged by the prosecution on 11-6-2006 at 11. 45 p. m. because the inquest report was prepared on 12-6-2006 from 9. 30 a. m. to 4. 40 a. m. which shows that in the morning, the F. I. R. has been written otherwise the inquest report would have been prepared in the night of 11/12-6-2006, the inquest report was prepared at the mortuary where sufficient light was not available. During the investigation the Investigating Officer has planted the recovery of a country-made pistol alleging that it was recovered at the pointing of the applicant and statement of Smt. Mamta Bhatia was recorded after 27 days of the alleged occurrence and there Is no explanation of such delay. The deceased was a criminal. He was convicted for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. He was involved in some other criminal cases also. He has been murdered by some unknown miscreants in the night, but In the morning F. I. R. was lodged only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The applicant is innocent. He may be released on bail. In reply to 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. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged without any delay. The applicant has caused injury on the chest from a close range. The injury was having blackening and tattooing. The applicant was having the motive to commit the alleged offence and the alleged occurrence has been witnessed by the first Informant and other witnesses, their presence at the scene of occurrence was natural. The inquest report was prepared in the morning because dead was kept at mortuary. The delay in preparing the inquest report is not the prosecution story and no positive inference can be drawn that the F. I. R. was ante timed. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence because he is a man of criminal nature.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the Emissions made by the Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the role of the applicant and its gravity and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant is, prima facie, not entitled for bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Application rejected. .;