- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Rohit Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 437 of 2007 under sections 307 and 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Mughalpura, District Moradabad.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by K. C. Bakshi on 17. 3. 2007 at 7. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14. 3. 2007 at about 9. 00 p. m. alleging therein that first informant and injured Manoj were coming their house after closing the shop, when they reached in front of the medical store of Dr. Yusuf at about 9. 00 p. m. , from the back side, the applicant and co-accused Amba Prasad came on a motorcycle an they were intercepted by the accused persons and they asked to file a compromise in case under section 326 I. P. C. pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar. It was denied by the first informant then at the exhortation of co-accused Amba Prasad the applicant discharged the shots by a country made pistol which hit the injured Manoj. Consequently, the injured Manoj became badly injured. He was taken to the District Hospital, Moradabad from where he was referred to Delhi after providing proper medical aid, the first informant went to the police station and lodged the FIR. According to the medical examination report the injured has sustained two gun shot wound of entries. The entry No. 1 was on the back of the chest and entry No. 2 was on the left arm. According to the supplementary medical examination report entry No. 2 was grievous in nature. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad who rejected the same on 11. 7. 2007. Being aggrieved of the order dated 11. 7. 2007 the applicant filed the present bail application. Heard Sri Braham Singh and Sri Susheel Kumar Tewari, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri T. A. Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night at about 9. 00 p. m. It is a purely hit and run affair, somebody came from the back side and caused injury by fire arm. There was no opportunity for the first informant and the injured to identify the real assailant. The FIR of this case is delayed by three days. It was lodged after thought and under suspicion on account of old enmity. The prosecution story is false and concocted. The injury sustained by the injured were not dangerous to life. The applicant is a man of peace loving. It is further contended that neither the first informant nor the injured had disclosed the name of the applicant at the time of the admission in the hospital. In case he is released on bail he shall not tamper with the evidence.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that applicant has caused injury on the person of the injured only on account of his refusal to file a compromise in case under section 326 IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar. It is a clear case of tampering with the evidence and pressurising the witnesses to file a compromise. The injuries sustained by the injured were caused by fire arm and in which injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. There is an explanation of delay in lodging the FIR, the condition of the injured was very serious, therefore, he was taken to the District Hospital, Moradabad from where he was referred to Delhi where his treatment was done in AIIMS, New Delhi. When the condition of the injured has been improved, the present FIR was lodged. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall not permit any witness to give the evidence against him, therefore, he may not be released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that the allegation made against the applicant is of serious in nature because he caused fire arm injury on the person of the injured when he refused to enter into a compromise in a case pending under section 326 I. P. C. The injured has sustained gun shot wound of entries in which one of the injury was grievous in nature. The gravity of the offence is too much, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and to ensure a fair trial the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. .;