Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Sanjay Yadav alias Mama, with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2005 under Sections 396, 307, 412 and 225, I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. G.R.P., district Azamgarh.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Constable Moinuddin Khan on 22.3.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 22.3.2005 at about 8.45 a.m. THE co-accused Bheem Raj Yadav is named and seven or eight accused persons were unknown. It is alleged that that first informant and constable Harendra Yadav and Constable Gulab Chand, who were armed with 303 bore rifle and having its cartridges, brought the co-accused Bheem Raj Yadav from the District Jail, Mau to produce him before the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. THEy were travelling in train. It is alleged that seven or eight unknown miscreants having the country made pistols came there and discharged shots towards the constables, who were having the rifles consequently, two constables sustained injuries and fell down. THEreafter, they taken away the rifles of those constables. THE co-accused Bheem Raj Yadav discharged shots at the first informant. THE first informant was beaten by the butt of the looted rifle. THE co-accused Bheem Raj also pushed the first informant and stepped down from the train and ran away from the place of occurrence. THE alleged incident was witnessed by the passengers of the train. Both the injured constables were taken to the District Hospital, Mau through a jeep. THE condition of constable Gulab was very serious, therefore, he was referred to Varanasi. Subsequently, the constables Gulab Chand succumbed to his injuries. Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava and Sri Anand Priya, learned counsel, for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has not been put up for identification. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused. Therefore, the statement of the two witnesses namely Bariyasan Singh, Rajdeo Chauhan and Pramod Yadav was recorded by the Investigating Officer. They claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses. They disclosed the name of the applicant also by alleging that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. The statements of these witnesses were recorded on 27.4.2005, whereas the alleged occurrence has taken place on 22.3.2005. The above mentioned statements are too much delayed. There is no explanation of delay in recording the statement of the above mentioned witnesses. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of some other witnesses also who saw the alleged occurrence, but they did not disclose the name of the applicant. No looted property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The naming of the applicant is afterthought. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions it is submitted by the learned, A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence has taken place in the territory of district Azamgarh. The witnesses, who disclosed the name of the applicant, belongs to district Mau. The alleged incident was witnessed by so many persons. The applicant was identified by the witness Barisayan Singh, Rajdeo Chauhan and Pramod Yadav. There is no delay in recording the statement of the abovementioned witnesses. The applicant is involved in six criminal cases. The gravity of the offence is too much. The applicant and other co-accused persons have taken away the accused Bheem Raj Yadav who was to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh and they have caused fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased and constable Harendra Yadav and caused injury on the person of the first informant also. The gravity of the offence is too much. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A, and considering the gravity of the offence, which is too much, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.;