- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Abbas with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2006, under Sections 302 and 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Cantt District Allahabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Hari Saran Yadav at P. S. Cantt on 22-6- 2006 at 9. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20-6-2006 at about 7. 00 or 8. 00 p. m. THE distance of the police station was about 4 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. THE F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant Abbas alleging therein that on 20-6-2006 at about 7. 00 or 8. 00 O' clock the deceased Subhash Yadav was sitting at the door of his house, the applicant armed with lathi and pistol came there and used lathi blows on him, after receiving the injury he fell down, then the applicant discharged the shot on the person of deceased by country made pistol, which hit the on his stomach, he was taken to the hospital by the first informant, where he died on 21-6- 2006. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had received 9 ante-mortem injuries. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava and Sri Raj Kamal Srivastava learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that: (i) The F. I. R. of this case is too much delayed without any plausible explanation. It was lodged on 22-6- 2006 at 9. 30 p. m. whereas the alleged occurrence had taken place on 20-6-2006 at 7. 00 or 8. 00 p. m. There was no source of light at the place of occurrence. (ii) The first informant and other witnesses had not witnessed the incident. It is a night occurrence. The naming of the applicant is after thought. No blood was found at the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is highly disputed. There is inconsistency between the medical and post-mortem examination reports of the deceased, because in the medical examination report only one injury i. e. fire- arm wound of entry has been mentioned, whereas in the post-mortem examination report 9 injuries have been mentioned. (iii) The deceased had died on 21-6-2006 at 8. 45 p. m. and dead- body was sent to the mortuary even then the F. I. R. was lodged on the next day i. e. 22-6-2006 at 9. 30 p. m. The delay in lodging the F. I. R. is not explained. (iv) The details of the incident has been published in a daily newspaper dated 22-6-2006, in which it has been mentioned that the deceased was taking out a country made pistol from the box to commit the murder of the applicant, his wife asked not to do so, then she was also beaten by him, thereafter, he was caught hold by his father and there had been scuffling between the deceased and his father, in which the shot was discharged accidentally, which hit the deceased. (v) The applicant is innocent. He is man of peace loving, therefore, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the specific role of causing injury is assigned to the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post-mortem examination report, which was having gunshot wound of entry and the injuries caused by hard and blunt object. The condition of the deceased was very serious. His father was busy in providing the proper medical aid to save his life, but unfortunately, he died in such a shocking condition, the first informant lodged the F. I. R. on 22-6-2006 at 9. 30 p. m. The first informant was the only male member in his family. The story published in the newspaper is having no relevance, because fire-arm injury and some other injuries were also present on the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence had taken place in the heart of the city, the gravity of offence is too much, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Application rejected. .;