Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Hari Om with the prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Pachokhara district Firozabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Vinod Kumar at P.S. Pachokhara on 11.11.2005 at 12.05 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 11.11.2005 at about 9.30 a.m. THE distance of the police station was about 3 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons. It is alleged that on 11.11.2005 at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased Brahm Dutt Dixit, father of the first informant, was going to Pachokhara by his motorcycle. The first informant alongwith his brother Neeraj was also lagging behind on a separate motorcycle, near the garden of Prem Singh, one Maruti Car was parked. As soon as his motorcycle reached there, the applicant and other co-accused persons, came out from the Maruti Car and one of the co-accused Pramod exhorted that due to the deceased he was defeated in the election that is why he would be killed by them. At his exhortation all the co-accused persons who were armed with country made pistol intercepted the deceased and the co-accused Pramod discharged shots, which hit the deceased. After receiving the injuries, he fell down in the field, which was at a short distance. Thereafter, the applicant, co-accused Tejvir and Vikas also caused gunshot injury on the person of the deceased a shot was discharged at the first informant also but fortunately he did not receive any injury. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by the persons who were working in the nearby fields. After committing the alleged offence the miscreants fled away towards Pachokhara. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to Kamayani Hospital, Agra, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, the first informant alongwith the dead body of the deceased went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 3 firearm wounds of entry and its exit wounds.
(3.) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Viresh Misra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mithlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant : 1. That the family members of the applicant have been falsely implicated in the present case. 2. That the presence of the first informant and other-accused persons at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because they did not make any attempt to save the life of the deceased even according to the prosecution version they were chance witnesses. 3.That the deceased was the village Pradhan. He had multi cornered enmity. 4.That there was no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence. 5.That the F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed, it was not in existence at the preparation of the inquest report because the inquest report was prepared under Section 302, I.P.C. subsequently, Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C. were added. 6.That the recovery of the country-made pistol at the pointing out of the applicant has been planted by the Investigating Officer which has not been supported by any independent witness. 7.That the alleged occurrence had taken place in a lonely place. It was committed by some unknown persons. The dead body was found, thereafter, the first informant and other persons who reached there subsequently. 8.That the prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical evidence because it has been specifically alleged that the shot discharged by Pramod hit the deceased. Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused Vikas and Tejvir discharged their shots but the deceased had received only three gun shot wounds of entry, which shows that there is false implication of the accused persons. 9.That the applicant is a man of peace. He is not a previous convict nor he is wanted in any other case and there is no chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence. Therefore, he may be released on bail. ;