- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Anoop Kumar Tiwari with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act P. S. Audyogik Kshetra District Allahabad.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Prem Shankar Yadav on 8-9-2006 at 2. 35 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8-9-2006 at about 2. 00 p. m. , the distance of the police station was about 2. 00 k. m. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and six other co-accused persons are named in the F. I. R. THE allegation against the applicant, co-accused Arun Kumar alias Rahul, co- accused Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Awadhesh Kumar alias Bhukkhal, co-accused Ashish Upadhyay, is that they discharged shots by their fire-arms consequently two persons namely Raghav Prasad Yadav and Uma Shanker Yadav sustained injuries and died instantaneously. THE accused persons discharged the shots towards the first informant and other witnesses also but luckily they could not receive any injury. THEre was a dispute between the parties in respect of a land. THE Post-mortem examination Report of Raghav Prasad Yadav shows that he had received three gun shot wounds of entry and three gun shot wounds of exit and the deceased Uma Shankar Yadav sustained 13 injuries in which 3 injures were gun shot wounds of exit and injury No. 10 was having tattooing on the left side of the face and three injuries were contusions. THE applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad who rejected the same on 2-3-2007 being aggrieved from the order dated 2-3-2007, the present application has been moved by the applicant. Heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur, Senior Advocate assisted by Vinay Prakash Shukla, and Sri Manoj Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri N. D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an innocent person, he has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi and to spoil the academic carrier of the applicant because he is a student of B. A. Part III. It is further contended that the F. I. R. of this case is ante timed and ante dated, it was not in existence at 3. 26 p. m. on 8-9-2006 because the Station Officer of P. S. Audyogik Kshetra District Allahabad has given information to the District Control Room on 8-9-2006 at 3. 26 p. m. that four unknown persons have killed the deceased Raghav Prasad Yadav and Uma Shanker Yadav, if the F. I. R, was in existence prior sending of this information, such information that four unknown persons have committed the murder, would not have been given, which shows that till the sending of this information to the District Control Room, the F. I. R. was not in existence whereas it is said by the prosecution that the F. I. R. was lodged at 2. 30 p. m. on 8-9- 2006. The applicant is innocent, he was attending the coaching classes at Target Academic Centre, Govind Nagar district Kanpur from where he was arrested on 8-9-2006 at 8 O'clock by the police team of Allahabad. The F. I. R. has been lodged against seven persons which shows that some of the accused are innocent, It is said that the applicant was armed with country made pistol whereas one accused Atul Kumar alias Rahul armed with licensed rifle. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that it is a broad day light murder, F. I. R. has been promptly lodged, specific role of discharging shot has been assigned to the applicant and four other co-accused persons, both the deceased persons have sustained gun shot injuries, the alleged wireless message is having no relevance at this stage and the applicant was arrested on the next day of the alleged incident. The applicant was taken on the police remand, at this pointing out one country made pistol was recovered. The applicant and other co- accused persons were having strong motive to commit the alleged offence, the gravity of the offence is too much, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. In the present case, an emphasis has been given by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the wireless message sent to District Control Room by the officer in-charge of the P. S. Industrial Area, district Allahabad on 8-9-2006 at 3. 26 p. m. informing that four unknown persons have committed the murder of deceased Radha Prasad Yadav and Uma Shanker Yadav whereas it is alleged by the prosecution that this case was registered on 8-9- 2006 at 2. 30 p. m. in which the applicant and other co- accused are named as accused, it shows that the F. I. R. was not in existence on 8-9-2006 at 3. 26 p. m. , it is ante timed, considering that same I am of the view that such wireless messages are sent to District Control Room for the purpose of giving information to the superior officers, such messages are sent on administrative side, the source and authority of such information, remains doubtful, if any person is relying upon such information, the burden of proving the authenticity of such information always lies upon such person, this stage comes at the time of trial. For the purpose of bail importance cannot be given to such wireless message.;