Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Johar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1025 of 2005, under Sections 302, 504, 120B and 34, I.P.C., P.S. Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged by Mohd. Muddisir on 20.12.2005 at 10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20.12.2005 at about 9.20 a.m., the distance of the police station was about 1 km. from the alleged place of the occurrence. THE F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused persons namely Jauhar, Talha, Marguv and Sahin. It is alleged that on 20.12.2005 at about 9.30 a.m., the first informant alongwith his uncle the deceased Ahmad Mukhtar and Shamsad alias Babbu were going to their workshop. When they reached in front of Khatauli Roadways, the applicant, co-accused Gauhar and Talha armed with country-made pistols, cought hold the deceased and uttered in an abusive language that he would not permitted to give the evidence in a case of murder of Hamid and Sajid and discharged shots at the deceased. Consequently he received gun shot injuries and died instantaneously, the alleged incident was witnessed by the first informant, Shamsad and other persons, due to this incident the dead body of the deceased was lying on the spot. THE aforesaid murder of the deceased had been committed at the instance of co-accused Marguv and Shahin as per their planning. THE co-accused Marguv, co-accused Gauhar and applicant Jauhar were accused in a case of murder of Hamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar. THE deceased was the eye-witness of the alleged incident and he was the first informant also. His evidence was deposed in the Court on 3.1.2006. Due to this reason, the deceased was murdered prior to date of the evidence. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received four gun shot wound of entries. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh and Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Veeresh Mishra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable, the presence of the witnesses at the place of alleged occurrence is highly doubtful because nobody had received any injury and nobody had made an attempt to save the life of the deceased, the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence, the alleged incident has been committed by some unknown person but due to old enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated. On the day of the alleged occurrence the applicant was in jail, he was in jail since 13.12.2005 to the evening of 20.12.2005. He was released from the jail in evening of 20.12.2005 whereas the alleged incident had occurred at about 9.30 a.m. on 20.12.2005. The applicant was sent to the jail under Section 138 of the Railways Act. The applicant was not present at the place of the occurrence when the alleged occurrence had taken place and there is no documentary evidence to show that he was confined in jail at the time of the alleged incident. The implication of the applicant is totally false. The co-accused Sahina Parvez has been released on bail by the Court below and the co-accused Margoob has been released on bail by this Court. The applicant is innocent person, he has not committed the alleged offence, therefore he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place in broad day light, the F.I.R. was promptly lodged, the alleged incident had been witnessed by the persons, the applicant was having strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased because he was the witness in a murder case of Kamid Mukhtar and Sajid Mukhtar, the date for recording his defence was fixed on 3.1.2006, prior to that date he has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused and the plea of alibi taken by the applicant is absolutely false because he was detained in any jail at the time of the commission of the alleged offence and the applicant actively participated in committing the murder of the deceased and he was seen by the witnesses, some other person was seen in the jail in the name of the applicant because the murder of the deceased is pre-planned. The plea of alibi shall be considered by the trial court. At this stage, this plea has no importance. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence because he is a witness in earlier murder case in which two persons of his family were done to death, therefore the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and considering the fact that the gravity of the offence is too much, the active role of discharging the shots is assigned to the applicant, the deceased had received the gun shot injuries and the deceased was witness of murder case in which the applicant was accused but prior to his deposition of the evidence, he has been murdered, the gravity of the offence is too much and the plea of alibi, if taken by the applicant, shall be considered by the trial court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.;