- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant Jai Ram Singh Yadav has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. seeking his release in case crime No. 2246 of 2005 (Session Trial No. 14 of 2006), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur.
(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant, as is culled from the FIR (Annexure No. 1), are that Ram Singh son of Raghubir Singh is the driver of Bundela brothers of Lalitpur. On 10-11-2005 he was carrying Sanjai Singh Bundela, Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Babboo Soni in a Scorpio Jeep to Lalitpur from Kala Pahad. He had to stop on a railway crossing near a railway signal because the crossing gate was closed at 4. 45 p. m. that date. At that time Jeep No. UP 094-A 8084 carrying Jai Ram Singh (applicant) Jogendra Singh alongwith his gunner, younger son of applicant and his wife, Gajendra Raja, and three others reached there and stopped the Jeep by the side of informants Scorpio Jeep and surrounded informant and his co-passengers. Informant and other persons got down from the Scorpio Jeep and inquired as to what was the matter on which Jogendra Singh pointed his rifle towards the chest of Sanjai Singh and challenged that he wanted to fight the Panchayat President election against him and therefore, they will not spare him and no sooner thereafter Jairam Singh applicant from the Sten Gun and rest of the accused from their pistols started firing at the informant and his co-passengers as a result of which Sanjai Singh, Dharmendra Singh sustained gun shot injuries and died on the spot and Babboo @ Brijesh Soni sustained many fire arm injuries. Kailash son of Mukundey, Usman Khan son of Pir Khan, reached on the spot and witnessed the incident. Jai Ram Singh (applicant accused) had also sustained firearm injuries from the firing made by his associates. Informant rushed to the police station Kotwali and got the FIR, Annexure No. 1 scribed from Balbhadra Singh and lodged it at 7. 35 p. m. covering a distance of 4 1/2 Kms that day itself. THE incident as is mentioned in the body of the FIR occurred on 10-11-2005 at 4. 45 p. m. THE autopsy reports on the dead-bodies of Sanjai Kumar Singh@ Sanju Raja, Dharmendra Paratap Singh, were conducted on 11-11-2005 at 1. 30 and 4. 10 a. m. and these reports, Annexure No. 2 and 3, indicates that they were found to have sustained fire arm wounds and the cause of their death were anti-mortem injuries. Injured Brijesh Kumar Soni was medically examined on 10-11-2005 at 6. 30 p. m. (Before the FIR was registered), vide Annexure No. 4, and his medical examination report shows that he too sustained four fire arm wounds and two lacerated wounds. In the opinion of the doctor his injuries number 1 to 4 were caused by fire arm and rest number 5 and 6 were caused by blunt object his medical examination report also shows that he was brought to the hospital by unknown person as after writing B/b rest was left blank by the doctor. His medical report also indicate that he was advised X-ray for injuries No. 1 to 4 of left thigh, pelvic region and right hand. On these allegations the applicant has applied for his release on bail. I have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned. Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samit Gopal advocate on behalf of applicant and Learned AGA as well as Sri Satish Trivedi learned senior Counsel on behalf of the informant in opposition. It is contended by Sri Chaturvedi that the prosecution case is absolutely false and cooked up and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident. He contended that in this case it was the prosecution side which had opened the fire at Jairam Singh applicant who received firearm injuries on his chest and abdomen, and in his defence his gunner resorted to firing from his sten gun at the call of applicant to save his life. He further contended that F. I. R. was cooked up later on and it is because of this reason that though the injured was medically examined at 6. 30 p. m. but no FIR was lodged at the police station at that time nor any intimation was sent to the police station immediately thereafter and subsequently the FIR was lodged after a gap of one hour at 7. 35 p. m. He contended that it is because of the reason to manipulate the F. I. R. that it is not mentioned in the injury report of the injured Brijesh Soni as to who brought him to the hospital and after writing B/b rest was left blank to be filled up later on as to suit the prosecution. This fact also indicate that the FIR was cooked up much later after due deliberation and consultation as the prosecution side was the aggressor. Sri Chaturvedi also submitted that there are cross cases and the FIR from his side was also registered but the police in connivance with prosecution side submitted a final report as the prosecution side is politically very influential and socially very strong. He also submitted that after implicating the applicant and other persons in the case even the house office and vehicles of applicant set to fire by the henchmen of the prosecution so much so that the motor cycles of the police personnels were also burnt for which the police has registered a case against those culprits (Annexure No. 17 ). He also contended that after the final report was submitted, the two persons from the prosecution side Pawan Singh Bundela and Babboo Soni have been summoned as accused by the C. J. M. , on 12-5-2006 for offence under Section 307 IPC (Annexure No. 20) on the protest petition filed by the applicant on 6-4-2006 (Annexure No. 20 ). He also submitted that discharge summary of the applicant (Annexure No. 21) of Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Delhi, shows that he had sustained serious fire arm injuries which could not be manufactured and that too on the chest and abdomen in front of his body and therefore, they cannot be the injuries from the firing made from the persons of his side. The applicant discharge report shows that he had undergone exploratory laprotomy with repair of colonic iliac with other abnormalities. Learned Counsel also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 4-12-2005. He also submitted that it is not believable that a person travelling with his wife and younger son will open the assault on other rival side to put the life of his wife and younger son in jeopardy especially when he is an advocate and knew the consequences of such an incident very well. He further contended that it was the prosecution side which opened fire at the applicant who sustained gun shot injuries on his chest and abdomen and yelled out to his gunner to save his life on which his gunner opened fire from his automatic weapon that the real culprits lost their lives and sustained injuries while saving themselves from automatic shots fired by the gunner in self defence to save the life of applicant. Learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out the criminal history of Pawan Singh Bundela (Annexure No. 25) and that of Sanjai Singh @ Sanju Raja and Dharmendra Pratap Singh, the two deceased (Annexure No. 24 ). He also contended that the father of Sanjai Singh Bundela is a minister in the present Government and therefore, the prosecution and the local police are dancing on his tune and has falsely implicated the applicant in the present crime when he is the real victim of assault. He also contended that the deceased, Dharmendra Pratap, and Pawan Kumar from the side of the prosecution are history-sheeters (Annexure No. 23 ). On these submissions learned Senior Counsel has prayed that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
(3.) LEARNED AGA as well as Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Counsel contrarily submitted that in this case two persons have been shot dead in day light and one person had sustained injuries and the applicant is one of the main culprits. They contended that it was the weapon of the gunner which was used by the applicant in the crime and there is an explanation of the injuries of the applicant in the FIR lodged by the prosecution. They also contended that prosecution side had sustained injuries on the back, which indicates that they were shot at while running. They also submitted that the cross version was found to be false and a final report was submitted by the I. O. but later-on, on the protest the two persons from the side of the prosecution have been summoned. They contended that the defence of the applicant is false and cooked up. They also contended that FIR is prompt and there are eye-witness account of the incident and hence there was no chance of any embellishment. They also contended that the accused were near the deceased and therefore, there is blackening and charring. They also submitted that the cross F. I. R. is cooked up and manufactured. They also contended that the applicant never wanted to confine himself in Lalitpur jail and hence he is confined in Orai jail. They also contended that in the trial even the charges have been framed. They also contended that the gunner of the applicant did not receive any injury. Therefore, they contended that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. I have given my anxious consideration on the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the record of this bail application.;