Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by Ram Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2006, under Sections 147, 302 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Aznar, district Mahoba. The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Om Prakash Nayak on 10.6.2006 at 10.45 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.6.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. The distance of the Police Station was about 10 kilometers from the alleged place of the occurrence. The applicant and eight other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the co-accused Har Govind Tiwari was having the enmity with the family of the first informant since the election of village Pradhan. In the morning of 10.7.2006 the applicant and other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy at the house of Har Govind Tiwari to commit the murder of deceased Pushpendra Nayak. The deceased Pushpendra had gone to attained the call of nature at about 9.00 a.m., all of sudden the first informant and others heard that the deceased was saying Save! Save! Then the first informant and other persons went towards the place where the deceased was shouting and saw that the applicant, co-accused Har Govind Tiwari and Kamta Tiwari were overpowering the deceased and pressing his neck and the co-accused Maiyadeen, Sadanand alias Sadan Yadav were causing the injuries on the person by the hood of lathi, they were challenged by the first informant and others, thereafter all the accused ran away towards the north side. The dead body of the deceased was brought by the first informant and placed on the Khalihan. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received 11 ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death was asphyxia due, to ante-mortem throttling.
(2.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri H. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place far away from the locality. The presence of the witnesses of the alleged offence was heavy doubtful, even according to prosecution version the witnesses reached at the place of occurrence on the shouting of the deceased and it is highly improbable that till the arrival of the witnesses the applicant and other co-accused persons were pressing the neck of the deceased and two other co-accused were causing injury by the hood of the lathi. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The witnesses are highly interested partisan and they are not reliable at all. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical examination report as it was highly improbable that at that time three persons including the applicant were overpowering the deceased and pressing the neck. The alleged occurrence was not witnessed by any person but due to village partibandi, the applicant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed any offence, he has been falsely implicated due to other reasons. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light at about 9.00 a.m. F.I.R. has been promptly lodged on the same day at 10.45 a.m. The specific role of pressing the neck is assigned to the applicant. The cause of death is due to throttling. The prosecution story is fully supported by the post mortem examination report. The deceased has been murdered in the presence of the witnesses. The applicant was having strong motive. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16861 of 2006 filed by co-accused Maiyadeen who caused injury by using of the hood of the lathi has been rejected by this Court on 15.9.2006. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant, considering the active role of the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.;