Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Puchchi Mishra with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2005 under Sections 302, 307 and 504, I.P.C. and 3 (2) (5) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act P.S. Ajitmal district Auraiya.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Asha Ram on 4.9.2005 at about 8.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 1.9.2005 at about 7.15 p.m. THE distance of the police station from the alleged place of occurrence is about 6 km.. THE F.I.R. was lodged against the co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi and three unknown miscreants alleging therein that the deceased Mahendra Kumar alias Kristo, Kripa Shanker and Hari Yogendra were present in the market of Anant Ram, at about 7.15 p.m. a white coloured Marshal vehicle came from the side of Mahewa which stopped near the wine shop, from the vehicle co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi and three unknown miscreants, who were armed with rifle, came out and by showing their weapons hurled abuses only to show their supremacy in the market. THE first informant, deceased Mahendra Kumar, witness Kripa Shanker and witness Dr. Hari Yogendra were present there and who were ready to move by their motor cycles, then the co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi and his three unknown miscreants put the barrel on the person of Hari Yogendra to know as to what has happened today at the liquor shop? THE witness Hari Yogendra when showed his ignorance he was abused by the accused persons by saying that talk in a low volume after putting off the spectacle then the deceased Mahendra came to pacify the matter and he caught hold the rifle's barrel of the co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi for saving the life of Hari Yogendra and tried to persuade the co-accused, in the meantime, in an abusive language a shot was discharged at the deceased which hit him, consequently he died on the spot. THEreafter other persons also came at the place of occurrence and the deceased was taken to P.H.C. where he was admitted as an emergency patient on 4.9.2005 but he was discharged on 5.9.2005 for the purpose of advance treatment and he was taken to Kanpur. During investigation the first informant disclosed the name of the applicant in his second statement recorded on 3.10.2005 under Section 161, Cr. P.C. alleging therein that the applicant discharged the shot by rifle which hit the deceased but this fact could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. and in his earlier statement because he was too much perturbed. THE same statement was given by the witness Hari Yogendra Singh and the witness Mahesh son of Nand Ram. Heard Sri Umesh Misra and Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant ; learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. even his name has not been disclosed by the first informant Asha Ram in his first statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. on 4.9.2005, and his name has been disclosed by the first informant on 3.10.2005 in his second statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and on the same day his name has been disclosed by the witness Hari Yogendra Singh and Mahesh son of Nand Ram. The naming of the applicant is afterthought. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.
(3.) IT is further contended that the applicant is not Puchchi nor he is Misra by sub caste, even he is not the resident of village Bamhaura, he never lived there. The correct name of the applicant is Dharmendra and his sub-caste is Tiwari. His father's name is Chandra Shekhar Tiwari. He is resident of village Mahewa since his birth. The identity of the applicant is highly doubtful. The co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi and Brijesh Mishra have been released on bail by this Court on 19.12.2005 and 14.2.2006 respectively and the co-accused Rajiv has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, on 9.2.2006. Therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail. In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that in the commission of the alleged offence three unknown miscreants have also participated but in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the first informant it has not been specified that as to whose shot hit the deceased whereas it is clearly mentioned that the deceased had caught hold the rifle's barrel of the co-accused Anil Kumar Tripathi in the meantime the shot was discharged at him. The first informant had disclosed the name of the two unknown person in his second statement dated 3.10.2005 recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P.C. in which it has been clearly explained by him that he was so perturbed that he could not disclose the name of the applicant and two other co-accused persons. The statement of the injured Hari Yogendra was also recorded on 3.10.2005 and on the same day the statement of witness Mahesh was recorded. They clearly stated that the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased. The statement of Hari Yogendra Singh could not be recorded immediately after the occurrence because he was admitted in the P.H.C. Where he was not in a position to give the statement. Thereafter, he shifted to Kanpur for better treatment, the Investigating Officer went there on 17.9.2005 but his statement could not be recorded because the injured was not in a position to give his statement. The delay in recording the statement has been properly explained. The applicant is the main accused. The co-accused have been released on bail, by this Court. They had not caused the injury to the deceased. The applicant is the main accused. He was known to the witness so he was not put up for identification and in any case the identity of the applicant is not disputed. In case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.;