Ravindra Singh - (1.) - This application has been filed by the applicant Wahid with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 263A of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C, and 3 (1) (x) of S.C.S.T. Act, P.S. Garh Mukteshwar, district Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Brahma on 13.7.1998 at 9.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 11/12.7.1998. THE applicant and four other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the deceased Shashi Kant, the son of the first informant was working at his field, he was called by the applicant and four other co-accused persons and he went in their company at about 6.00 p.m., thereafter he did not return to his house. On 12.7.1998 the deceased was murdered by the applicant and four other co-accused persons by using spade blows and causing gun shot wound of entry because there was a dispute between the deceased and accused person. THE F.I.R. of the first informant was not registered on 12.7.1998 even the first informant was not permitted to see the dead body of the deceased. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received three incised wounds and one gun shot wound of entry. Heard Sri Ashish Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of this case is delayed, and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of doubt and suspicion by giving different colour to the real story which has been given by the applicant by lodging the F.I.R. On 12.7.1998 at 3.30 p.m. in Case Crime No. 263 of 1998 under Sections 307, 380 and 511, I.P.C. connected with Case Crime No. 264 of 1998 under Section 25, Arms Act alleging in the F.I.R. that three miscreants came at the tube-well of the applicant who discharged the shots towards the first informant and others, in the self defence the first informant and others also discharged the shots by his licenced gun, one of the miscreants fell down near the tube-well. On the shouting made by the first informant the witnesses came at the place of occurrence then the miscreant who fell down also discharged a shot which was missed, thereafter one Irshad Ali, brother of the applicant used the tasla and spade blows on the person of the deceased, consequently he died on the spot. The deceased and other miscreants had come at the tube-well for committing the theft, one 315 bore country made pistol, two live cartridges and Rs. 950 were recovered from the possession of the deceased. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that-deceased himself had gone to commit the theft and discharged the shots, in the self defence the injuries were caused on his person. In the present case the investigation was done by local police who came to the conclusion that the F.I.R. lodged against the deceased is correct but the present prosecution version was not correct and submitted the final report but due to interference of the higher authorities the further investigation was done by the Circle Officer who also came to the conclusion that the applicant and other co-accused were falsely implicated, thereafter the matter was again handed over to the C.B.C.I.D. who submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants. During investigation it has been specifically alleged that applicant was armed with gun but the injury caused by the fire arm was not fatal. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated. It is admitted case that the injury was caused to the deceased by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased belong to a scheduled caste community. The cross version has been lodged only to get the compensation of Rs. One lac from the State Government which she got, there is no direct eye-witness account.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the deceased was taken by the applicant and other co-accused from his field subsequently he was done to death by them. But after committing the murder applicant come on different version acquitting the deceased person. Applicant was having enmity with the deceased. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The applicant being a powerful person using his influence upon the investigating agencies but ultimately the matter was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. who submitted the charge-sheet against him. The deceased was not having criminal antecedents, the participation of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence has been established by statement of witnesses, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.;