Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Babloo Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 2006, under Section 302, I.P.C., P.S. Madnapur, district Shahjahanpur.
(2.) HEARD Sri P. N. Misra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. From the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by Bharat Singh on 16.4.2006 at 8.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.4.2006 at about 4.00 a.m. alleging therein that the deceased alongwith his younger brother Amdesh Singh and his cousin Surendra Pal Singh had gone to bring compine from Pradhan Gharvender Singh. In the night of 15/16.4.2006, it was learnt that compine was working in the field of one M.L.A. therefore they slept at that field, at about 4.00 a.m., the applicant and co-accused Madanpal Singh and Munishwar Singh came there and asked to pick up the compine from Jhala, then the deceased went in their company, after a short time, the alarm raised by the deceased was heard by the first informant and others. On that alarm, they reached at the place of the occurrence and saw in the moon-light that the applicant and other co-accused persons were beating the deceased. They were challenged by the first informant and others then the applicant discharged the shot which hit the deceased. The first informant and others made an attempt to apprehend the accused persons but they successfully escaped from there. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased received two lacerated wounds and one firearm wound of entry. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night, the presence of the first informant and other witnesses are highly doubtful. According to the site plan, the alleged occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses at a distance of 15 mts. It was not possible to recognise even a known person from such a long distance because the best known person cannot be recognised in a clearest moon light beyond a distance of 17 yards. It is further contended that the investigating agency is not relying upon the prosecution story and has submitted a final report in favour of the co-accused Madanpal Singh and Munishwar Singh. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence. Even he was not having any motive to commit the alleged offence and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story, the witnesses are highly interested and partisan. In the F.I.R. it has not been mentioned that the deceased was assaulted with butt of the gun of the applicant and it was not mentioned that the butt was broken and its pieces were at the place of the occurrence. The applicant is a farmer, he is not involved in any other criminal 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 applicant was well known to the deceased and the witnesses. The deceased was taken by the applicant and others, thereafter he was shot dead and alleged occurrence had taken place in full moonlight. IN such circumstances, there was no difficulty in recognising the applicant, the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The applicant is the main accused who caused the firearm injury on the chest of the deceased, consequently the deceased died on the spot, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore he may not be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.;