Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Mannu alias Munnu alias Samshulzama with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C. P.S. Civil Lines, district Allahabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ansar Ali Khan on 5.8.2006 at about 10.50 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5.8.2006 at about 10.20 a.m. near Hari Masjid Dhoobi Ghat, G.T. Road, Allahabad, the distance of the police station was about 2-1/2 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and four other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the deceased Ahmad Ali alias Nanhe Khan, uncle of the first informant, was sitting at the tea stall of Maulana near Hari Masjid Dhoobi Ghat crossing, the first informant and his uncle, Akhtar Ali also reached at that tea stall where Suhail Ahmad, the driver of the deceased was present at about 10.20 a.m. one Maruti Car No. U.P. 70-4272 came there ; from that Maruti Car co-accused Sohrab Khan armed with rifle, applicant and two unknown persons came out and after extending exhortation, the deceased was killed by them by using rifle and bomb. THE first informant, his uncle Akhtar Ali, Suhail Ahmad, made the shouting, then the applicant and other co-accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence by the same Maruti Car. THE motive for commission of the alleged murder was that on 16.6.2006 a tender was submitted by the deceased worth Rs. 1,50,000 which was accepted in the office of D.R.M., Northern Railways and the work order was given to him. THE co-accused Hamza Usman wanted to get the tender in favour of the co-accused Brijesh Agarwal and co-accused Bablu alias Idris. For this reason, the co-accused Hamza Usman used to extend threat to the deceased and demanding Rs. 17,000 otherwise the deceased would be killed. Due to this enmity, the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has received two fire arm wound of entry, three fire arm wound of exit, one abraded contusion, one abrasion and one traumatic swelling. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem firearm injuries. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate, assisted by Imram Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful ; the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. are highly interested and partisan. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. During investigation the statement of Noorain, owner of the tea stall, was recorded. He stated that he could not identify any of the miscreants. The statement of the first informant Ansar Ali Khan was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. on 27.11.2006. According to his statement on 5.8.2006 at about 10.30 a.m. the deceased was at the tea stall, the first informant and Akhtar Ali were filling the diesel in the motor vehicle, hearing the sound of firing he alongwith Akhtar Ali came at the place of occurrence and they were informed by some persons that the applicant, co-accused Sohrab and two unknown miscreants came on a blue colour Maruti Car, the co-accused Sohrab caused the gun shot injury by rifle and the applicant by hurling bombs committed the murder of the deceased. This information was given to him by Maulana, owner of the tea stall and Bashir Bhai. According to his statement the first informant, has not witnessed the incident. The statement of Akhtar Ali, uncle of the first informant, was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. on 27.11.2006. He also supported the statement of Ansar Ali Khan, recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. but he stated that he was not able to disclose the name who gave information to him, it shows that the witness Akhtar Ali also did not witness the alleged incident. IT is further contended that according to the post mortem examination report the cause of death was due to fire arm injury and there was no tripical injury caused by bomb blast. The nature of the abraded contusion, abrasion and traumatic swelling show that these injuries were caused by bomb blast. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence even the applicant was having no concern to commit the alleged offence. The alleged offence has been committed by some unknown persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the first informant. In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence has taken place in broad day light in the heart of the city ; specific role of hurling the bombs is assigned to the applicant and the accused Sohrab who caused injury by rifle. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The applicant and other co-accused persons were having strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased. During investigation the statement of the first informant, witness Akhtar Ali and Sushail Ahmad have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. They have supported the prosecution story and have shown their presence at the alleged place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer have found splinter from the alleged place of occurrence showing the hurling of the bomb. After collecting sufficient material, the charge was submitted against the applicant, co-accused Sohrab Khan and Babloo alias Mohd. Idris under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C. on 19.10.2006, but the investigation was pending in respect of the co-accused Hamza Usman and co-accused Brijesh Agarwal. The statement of the first informant Ansar Ali Khan and Akhtar Ali were recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. after submission of the charge-sheet on 27.11.2006 against the applicant there was no need of recording such statement. It appears that the statement were recorded under the influence of the accused persons in connivance of the Investigating Officer, therefore, the statements were having no importance after submission of the charge-sheet but the statement of alleged eye-witness Suhail Ahmad is intact. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.;