Vinod Prasad - (1.) -This bail application has been filed by applicant Manoj Kumar who is an accused in Case Crime No 1280 of 2005, under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Baraut, district Baghpat.
(2.) THE F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the applicant himself on 24.8.2005 at 10.30 p.m. in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day at 8.00 p.m. In the said F.I.R., which was scribed by the applicant himself it is alleged that the applicant alongwith Sarvendra and Ananad Pal was going to Badarkha from Binoli on the motorcycle of Sarvendra. At 8.00 p.m. when they reached near the Culvet between Malkhpur and Chawbali then all of a sudden from the left side some miscreants appeared and hit Anand Pal on his head by danda who was driving the motorcycle. THE motorcycle lost its balance and fell down. Meanwhile, from behind a passenger bus was coming. THE applicant jumped into the bus. THE miscreants fired at Sarvendra and Anand Pal. THE applicant went to Binoli and inform the people and accompanied by them he came back on the spot. From the spot he brought the injured Anand Pal and Sarvendra to doctor Katiyar who declared Sarvendra dead and referred Anand Pal to District Hospital, Meerut. He further averred that the relatives of the injured and the deceased were informed by him and he and other passengers of the bus had seen the miscreants very well and can recognize them. THE post-mortem of the deceased Sarvendra dated 25.8.2005 indicate that he has sustained firearm injury on face, neck and abdomen with a gunshot wound of exit and the cause of his death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. THE medical report of Anand also indicate that he had also sustained fire-arm injuries. He had also received fracture of cervical vertebra and his right mandibular condyle was also fractured. All injuries of the injured Anand Pal were dangers to life. THE investigation revealed that it was the applicant who had hatched up the conspiracy and got the deceased murdered and the injured sustained injuries. On these facts the applicant has pressed for his bail. Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the real culprits have been shielded by the Investigating Officer and the applicant has been falsely implicated very belatedly on 1.9.2005 when the occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.8.2005. He further contended that Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the injured was also recorded very belatedly on 13.9.2005 after a gap of 20 days from the date of incident. He further submitted that the investigation is tainted and cooked up, as there has been certain interpolations made in the case diary by the Investigation Officer. He invited the attention on pages 32 to 35 of the bail application, which indicates that the serial number of the pages of the case diary has been written in ink in respect of the last three letters. He further submitted that there was absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the injured was not able to speak and therefore, his belated examination is ample proof of the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned A.G.A. as well as Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant on the other hand contended that in this case the applicant had got the motive to commit the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the pages in the case diary were not changed and in fact the last three digits were mildly printed and therefore, the same was only brought forth. They further submitted that the applicant was the main conspirator and in fact he also participated in the incident. They further submitted that the presence of injured eye-witnesses on the spot is not doubtful and they have specifically stated that it was the applicant who hatched up the conspiracy and murder the deceased. They further stated that Anand Pal in this statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. clearly stated that it was the applicant who is the main culprit. They further submitted that injured Anand Pal has sustained injuries in the mouth and therefore, was unable to speak and consequently his Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement was recorded belatedly. They further submitted that there was no reason for false implication of the applicant.
(3.) I have considered the trial submissions, in my view, the injured person has named the applicant as the prime accused who had hatched up the conspiracy. At this stage cannot be disbelieved. I do not find any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail prayer is declined. The bail prayer is rejected.;