Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Hakeem Ahmad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 and 286, I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhomanganj, district Allahabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Bilkit Begum on 7.12.2005 at 5.25 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 7.12.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. THE applicant and six other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that there was a dispute between the deceased and applicant over a plot. THE applicant and co-accused Shakeel Ahmad were not leaving the plot despite the order passed by the Court concerned. THE applicant and other co-accused persons were extending the threat to the deceased. THE alleged occurrence had taken place when deceased was coming back to his house from the city area, when he was at distance of about 100 meters from his house, he was attacked by the applicant and other co-accused persons by hurling the bombs and discharging the shots by country made pistols, consequently the decease became injured and started running leaving the scooter there, thereafter he was caught hold by the accused and dragged to the mohalla Pasiyana because accused were discharging the shots and hurling the bombs. Due to this incident the panic was created and shops were closed by shopkeepers. THE dead body of the deceased was lying in mohalla Pasiyana. From the perusal of post mortem examination report the deceased had received three firearm wounds of entry, two lacerated wounds, one contusion, two abrasion contusion and six abrasions. Heard Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Government advocate for the State of U. P. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated on the basis of old litigation, the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. The deceased was a known criminal of the city, he was involved in many criminal cases, he had multiple criminal enmity, some unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased because the dead body of the deceased was not found at the alleged place of occurrence, it was brought by constable Mangala Singh of P.S. Dhomanganj to S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad on 7.12.2005 at 7.05 p.m. which belies the hole prosecution story. It also shows that F.I.R. was not registered on 7.12.2005 at 5.25 p.m. The F.I.R. is ante-timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparing the inquest report. According to the statement of the first informant, it is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Shakeel Ahmad were armed with country made pistols and both discharged the shots by their weapons. It is further contended that co-accused Sangam Pasi, Pradeep Pasi, Shekhar Pasi and Ganesh alias Kanja Pasi have been released on bail, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned Government advocate that the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the alleged occurrence has taken place in city area, the specific role of causing injury by country made pistol is assigned to the applicant, it has been corroborated by the post mortem examination report and nothing is on record to show that the F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed and there is no reason to disbelieve the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence and the bail application of the co-accused Shakeel Ahmad whose case is on the same footing with the case of the applicant has been rejected by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, J. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18478 of 2006, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned Government advocate, considering the role of the applicant, gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.;