Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Shahbaz Beg with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2006, under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Lalkurti, district Meerut.
(2.) FROM the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Qamar Khan on 8.2.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and two other co-accused with the allegations that the applicant and other co-accused persons were having the enmity with the deceased and his family and there had been litigation between the parties, Dr. Parwez Khan, the brother of the first informant was murdered by the applicant and co-accused Shahnaz Beg alias Nikku was absconded from the police custody on 29.3.2005. The applicant and other co-accused persons were pressurising the first informant and others for entering into a compromise and on 8.2.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. the applicant and other accused persons armed with revolver and country made pistol came to the clinic of the deceased and hurled the abuses. Thereafter the applicant and co-accused Shahnaz Beg alias Nikku discharged the shots, consequently the father of the first informant received injuries. He was taken to the hospital but in the way he succumbs to his injury. Due to this incident, a panic was created in the market and shops were closed. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased received five gun shot wound of entries and two gun shot wound of exit. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the offence, but due to old enmity the applicant has been falsely implicated and the presence of the witnesses at the place of the occurrence is highly doubtful, the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence because it is stated that the applicant and the co-accused Shahnaz Beg alias Nikku discharged shots but the deceased had received five gun shot wounds of entry and the nature of the injuries shows that the injuries were caused by one firearm, the allegation that the applicant and other co-accused persons were pressurising the deceased and his family members to enter into a compromise in a murder case of Dr. Parwez Khan is absurd because the applicant has been acquitted in that case on 27.12.2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 437 of 2004. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story and the witnesses are highly interested and partisan witnesses and during investigation some of the witnesses including the wife of the deceased stated that the applicant had not discharged the shots. The shots were discharged by the co-accused Shahnaz Beg alias Nikku which hit the deceased, therefore the applicant may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant and other accused persons were having strong motive to commit the alleged offence because the applicant and other co-accused persons had committed the murder of Dr. Parwez Khan, deceased on 27.1.2004. IN that case the bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 8.8.2005 and the co-accused Shahnaz Beg alias Nikku fled away from police custody on 29.3.2005. Thereafter he was arrested in the month of January, 2005. His trial was separated in that case but the applicant was acquitted on 22.12.2005. Against that order, Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2006 has been filed by the complainant in which notice had been issued and the trial court record had been summoned by this Court on 19.1.2006. The alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light in open market and the deceased had been murdered by causing the firearm injuries. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, the gravity of the offence is too much. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the applicant 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. and considering the gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.;