Shiv Shanker - (1.) -This is the first application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant before this Court in Case Crime No. 188 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station North Firozabad, district Firozabad.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, as per the first information report, is that first informant Sarman Yadav and his brother Rakesh Yadav were returning to their village from market on 20.5.2006 at about 9.30 a.m. by their Pulser motor cycle. As soon as they reached on Bodhashram Road under the over-bridge, situated in front of the house of Manoj Yadav, accused Chandra Prakash Yadav, Deepak Yadav, Bale, Saurabh, Ravi Pandi, Abbu and Satya Prakash Lal, armed with revolvers and country made pistols were found standing there. After seeing them, accused, Satya Prakash Lal and Chandra Prakash raised alarm to kill them upon which Deepak Yadav, Bale, Saurabh, Ravi Pandit and Abbu opened fires. Consequently, Rakesh fell down with the motor cycle. He received injuries and died on spot but the first informant escaped. THE incident was witnessed by Shanker Yadav and others. A litigation was pending between Satya Preakash Lal and first informant as he wanted to dispossess the first informant from his plot and house. Due to this, he was murdered. THE first information report was lodged on the same day at 9.35 a.m. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the whole records. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that that the first informant alongwith one Shanker Yadav has been shown eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. In the first parcha of the case diary, which was prepared after the first information report, the parentage and address of Serman Yadav has been interpolated which showed that till then Serman Yadav was not present. It is further contended that the first informant himself went to lodge the first information report to the police station and Investigating Officer is present but his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was not recorded. The Investigating Officer directly went to the spot and prepared the inquest report. Initially, in the second page of the inquest, only Sections 302/307 /506, I.P.C. was mentioned and thereafter Section 147/148/149/ 504, I.P.C. were added. The name of the informant appears to have been added later on. It is further contended that after the inquest report, the first informant was interrogated on the day of incident. In this case, the first information report was registered on 20.5.2006 at 10.30 a.m. After preparation of Chik report, the G.D. entry was prepared and it was copied down in the case diary. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached on the spot for inquest covering two kilometers distance. He proceeded with the inquest proceedings at 10.30 a.m. and concluded the same at 10.30 a.m. itself which is not possible in any way. It is further contended that the recovery memo of two bullets was prepared at 10.45 a.m. and the recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth was prepared at 10.50 a.m.
(3.) IT is further contended that till 23.6.2006, nothing material was done and Shanker Yadav was not interrogated. On 23.6.2006, the Investigating Officer has taken the statements of Serman Yadav and Shanker Yadav in writing duly signed by them. Thereafter, he copied down it in the case diary. Thereafter, certain questions were put by the Investigating Officer to these two witnesses which is the additional statement written in the case diary than the written statement. IT is further contended that the victim was assaulted at place 'X' and he was fired at from place 'D'. The distance between the place 'X' and 'D' is five paces. The first informant is shown to run away towards north then turn towards west. IT is no where shown from where he had seen the incident at place 'C'. Witnesses are said to have seen the incident and who is that witness is not mentioned in the site plan. IT is further contended that the firing was made from a distance of five paces but there is no blackening and charring in and around the injury which is not possible. IT is further contended that the presence of co-accused Satya Prakash Yadav was found false during the course of investigation as he was present in Sholapur (Maharashtra). Therefore, a final report was filed against him. IT is further contended that the deceased was having criminal history nine cases including Sections 307, 380, 411, 323, 355 etc. I.P.C. Therefore, it appears that he was murdered by his enemies and the first informant and other witnesses were not present at the time of the occurrence. The presence of first informant is also suspicious as he did not receive any injury in the alleged occurrence while he was also going with the deceased upon the said motor cycle. IT, is further contended that after the murder, police reached at the place of incident and recorded the statements of the persons of nearby localities. Their names are Bhagwan, Anil. Vikash Pagoria and Shakir who stated that they saw one fallen motor cycle and one person falling therewith. This also supports that they did not see the accused persons whose names have been disclosed in the first information report. IT is further contended that no prosecution witness would state as to who fired from which weapon and that he did not see Satya Prakash Lal at the time of incident. The second statement of first informant reveals that the presence of accused Satya Prakash Lal at the time of incident was found suspicious. On that basis, the presence of eye-witnesses becomes suspicious. IT is further contended that the first informant jumped from the moving motor cycle as per his statement but no injury report has been filed by him to show that he received any injury while doing this act. IT is further contended that when the first informant saw five injuries on the dead body of deceased then he implicated five accused persons in the alleged occurrence to cause fire arm injuries on the dead body of the deceased. IT is further contended that the post mortem report suggests that injury No. 2 which correspond to injury No. 1, is a rifle shot as the exit wound was much larger than the entry wound. Injury No. 1 and injury No. 3 appear to have been caused by same weapon meaning thereby any one of the accused persons at least is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Therefore, it appears that the deceased was killed when he was all alone as has been supported by locals in "Samai Sakshya" at the place of incident. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.;