Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Sanju Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 485 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Jafrabad, district Jaunpur.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 17.7.2006 at 2.20 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. THE distance of the police station was about 3 kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and 11 other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that one day prior to the alleged occurrence, i.e., 16.7.2006 one Amit, the nephew of the first informant, was beaten by co-accused Tapan and Ajit alias Bhuwar Singh in Jafrabad Market. Its information was given to the police station Jafrabad in the night of 17.7.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. THE applicant and co-accused persons namely Rajesh alias Pullu, Santosh Singh, Ajit alias Bhuwar, Anoop, Tapan, Avnesh, Dipley, Praveen, Pintoo, Rahul Singh and Mithilesh armed with pistol, country made pistol, danda, hasiya came at the door of the first informant, where they hurled abuses and by giving challenge made the assault on the persons who were present there, consequently, all the persons present there received injuries. Co-accused Rajesh, co-accused Anoop, co-accused Praveen and co-accused Santosh were armed with pistols and country made pistols. THE applicant was armed with hasiya and remaining co-accused persons were armed with danda. Due to this incidence Manoj, Sanjay and other villagers came at the place of occurrence and in protest they threw the bricks and stones towards the accused persons. Consequently, all the accused persons were compelled to flee away by leaving their 3 motorcycles at the alleged place of occurrence. Amongst the injured Rana Pratap Singh and Shiv Kumar had received gun shot injuries. THEir contrition was very serious. THEy were sent to the hospital and remaining injured were taken to police station where the F.I.R. was lodged, but subsequently, Rana Pratap Singh succumbed to his injuries on 21.7.2006 at 10.20 p.m., in the hospital. According to his post mortem examination report he has received 4 injuries. According to his first medical examination report he had received multiple gunshot wound of entry. THE injured Shiv Kumar Singh had received 2 injuries in which injury No. 1 was incised wound on left side the head. This injury was kept under observation. Advised X-ray. Injury No. 2 was contusion on the right forehead. Injury No. 3 was complaining of pain on the right chest. Injured Abhishek Singh had received 3 injuries in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound. Injury No. 2 was abrasion and injury No. 3 was contusion, injured Randeep Singh had received one lacerated wound. Injured Ravindra Kumar Singh received 3 incised wounds and complain of pain. Injured Pradeep Kumar Singh had received 2 injuries in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound and injury No. 2 was contusion, Injured Awadh Kumar received 2 injuries. Heard Sri S. P. S. Rathor, Sri Durgesh Pratap Singh learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri R. P. Singh learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version the applicant allegedly caused injuries by hasiya whereas other co-accused persons caused injuries by firearm and lathi, but the deceased Rana Pratap Singh had received injuries caused by firearm. The applicant did not cause any injury on the person of deceased. According to the medical examination report injured Shiv Kumar Singh had received one incised wound on the left side head and injured Ravindra Kumar Singh received 3 incised wounds which can be said to be caused by the sharp edged weapon. The nature of injuries shows that the incised wounds sustained by 2 injured persons have not been caused by weapon sariya and the injuries were not dangerous to life. At the most the offence committed by the applicant will not go beyond purview of Section 324, I.P.C., which is bailable. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence, but due to ill will the first informant has falsely implicated the applicant. In the present case, the prosecution story is not corroborated by medical evidence. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, therefore he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The applicant and other co-accused persons attacked at the house of the first informant. They caused injury on the person who were present there. IN the present case, one person has lost his life and many persons have received injury. The role of the applicant causing the injury by hasiya is established by injury report of the injured Shiv Kumar Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh, who have received incised wounds and the applicant is man of criminal nature. 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, role of the applicant causing the injury on the person of the injured, gravity of the offence and, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant 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, the bail application is rejected.;