Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Satya Prakash Singh alias Teepu Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 321 of 2005, under Section 302, I.P.C., P.S. Mughal Sarai, district Chandauli.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sadanand Dubey on 6.9.2005 at 10.00 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 6.9.2005 at about 9.00 a.m. THE distance of the Police Station was about 3 kl. mts. from the alleged place of the incident. THE F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that some unknown miscreant committed the murder of the deceased who caused fire arm injury to the deceased when he was inside the car. THE deceased in injured condition was taken to Anand Poly Clinic, Mughal Sarai, from where he was referred to Heritage Hospital, Varanasi. THE neighbourer of the first informant had taken to the deceased to the Heritage Hospital, Varanasi, but the first informant went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received 16 ante-mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15 were fire arm wound of entries, injury Nos. 2, 4, 7, 12 and 16 were exit wounds and injury No. 10 was lacerated wound and one bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased. THE name of the applicant had been disclosed by the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and from the possession of the applicant 9 mm. pistol was recovered. THE alleged occurrence was witnessed by Vikas Kumar Pandey alias Vikky and Vinod Kumar Pandey alias Chahetu. THEy have apprised the first informant and about the same incident, on their saying the first informant disclosed the name of the applicant. Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar and Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki, 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 : (i) That the first informant is not eye-witness and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and even the name of the applicant has not been disclosed by the deceased because he was unconscious. Neither the applicant nor any witness has been named in the F.I.R. Even nobody has informed the first informant that the injuries were caused by fire arm ; (ii) That after the registration of the case, the Investigating Officer completed the initial formalities and then proceeded to place of the occurrence. When he reached at the crossing he was stopped by first informant and two other persons and disclosed the name of the accused and the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the first informant who stated that after lodging the F.I.R. he was preparing to go to Heritage Hospital, Varanasi, he met with Vikas Kumar Pandey alias Vikky and Vinod Kumar Pandey alias Chahetu who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence and narrated the story that when they reached near Parahupur turning, they saw the deceased coming in a Maruti Car followed by two motorcycles, in which one motor-cycle was driven by Syed Nasar Ahmed, the applicant was its pillion rider and second motor-cycle was driven by Pancham Singh, its pillion rider was Ajit Singh alias Guddu Singh. The car of the deceased was overtaken by them and by stopping the same the co-accused Ajai Singh alias Guddu Singh discharged the shots by pistol from the front side and the applicant discharged shots by pistol from the left side. About 15 shots were discharged by them. The witnesses stated that they became so afraid that they came back to their house, they took the water and after becoming composed again came back and met the first informant and narrated the whole story. The first informant stated that the co-accused Pancham Singh and applicant were threatening the deceased due to old contract. The statement of the first informant is based on hearsay ; (iii) That the name of the applicant is by way of improvement in the prosecution story only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion because in F.I.R. no such suspicion was expressed by the first informant ; (iv) That the witness Vinod Kumar Pandey alias Chahetu is brother-in-law of the first informant and is resident of Gahari, which was at a distance of 14 kl. mts. from the place of the occurrence and witness Vikas Kumar Pandey alias Vikky is real nephew of Vinod Kumar Pandey. They are also chance witnesses. The conduct of these witnesses shows that they have not seen the alleged occurrence, being closed relative of deceased they would have gone to the house of the first informant, if they had seen the alleged occurrence. It shows that they have not seen the alleged occurrence ; (v) That the inquest report was prepared on 6.9.2005 at 1.00 p.m. in which it was mentioned that the shot was discharged at the deceased by the miscreants ; (vi) That the Investigating Officer came to know on 7.9.2005, that the deceased succumbs to his injuries then he initiated the investigation on 8.9.2005. On 9.2.2005, the applicant was arrested alongwith 9 mm. pistol and recorded the alleged confessional statement ; (vii) That the presence of the alleged witnesses at the alleged place of the occurrence is highly doubtful. The deceased was murdered by some unknown person at a lonely place but on the basis of the doubt and suspicion the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad day light at about 9.00 a.m., the first informant got the information of this incident, he came at the place of the occurrence and took the deceased to the hospital but due to serious condition of the deceased the case was referred to Heritage Hospital, Varanasi. The deceased was taken to Heritage Hospital, Varanasi, by the neighbourer of the first informant and the first informant went to Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged within one hour of the alleged occurrence. There was no occasion for the first informant of having the meeting with any eye-witness, after lodging the F.I.R., the first informant was going to Heritage Hospital, Varanasi, in the way he met with the witnesses who narrated the whole story. Thereafter the statement of the first informant was recorded who disclosed the name of the applicant and the statement on 6.9.2005. Immediately thereafter the INvestigating Officer alongwith witnesses Vikas Kumar Pandey alias Vikky and Vinod Kumar Pandey alias Chahetu came at the place of the occurrence where he recorded the statements of abovementioned witnesses on 6.9.2005 and at the pointing out of the above-mentioned eye-witnesses, INvestigating Officer prepared the spot inspection note. The conduct of the above-mentioned witnesses was not unnatural after seeing the alleged occurrence in which the deceased had been caused injury by way of indiscriminate firing. Even the witnesses went to their house then came back is not unnatural. According to the statements of the witnesses the applicant has caused injury by pistol from the left side of the deceased had received gun shot injuries. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. which shows that he has not been falsely implicated and the applicant is having a criminal background. He had been involved in six other criminal cases including the murders. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the applicant and submissions made by both sides and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.;