Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Jhabbu alias Kaptan with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Iglas, district Aligarh.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the first informant Charan Singh on 26.2.2006 at 9.15 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 26.2.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. THE F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and four other co-accused namely Bhura, Kasua, Onkar Singh, Charan Singh, Dhanesh, Shyam Singh and Narain Singh, the distance of the police station was 12 kms. from the alleged place of the occurrence. It is alleged that one Ashok, the brother of the applicant and co-accused Bhura and Kasua had died on 14.2.2006 in village Nayavash. Due to that murder, the applicant and his brother had left the village and were living in the village Balrai at the house of their maternal uncle co-accused Onkar Singh. Due to this enmity, on 26.6.2006 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased Arvan, Satish and Hariram had gone to attend the call of nature in the Jungle, the first informant had also gone at his tubewell in the Jungle. As soon as the deceased Arvan reached near the tubewell of first informant, the applicant and co-accused Bhura, Kasua, Onkar Singh, Charan Singh, Dhanesh, Shyam Singh and Narain Singh came out from the tubewell and the crop of the wheat and loudly stated that after committing the murder of the deceased Harpal S he has been thrown into the well, now Arvan Singh has also come, he also be killed. THEreafter the accused persons discharged shots at the deceased Arvan Singh. THE first informant also ran towards the tubewell. THE shot was discharged by co-accused Bhura by saying that do not come there otherwise he also be killed. It was told by the accused Jhabbu that the deceased Arban had died. THEreafter the accused persons left the place of the occurrence by showing their firearms. THE first informant and others went towards the well boarding from where the dead body of the deceased Harpal was taken out. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased Harpal had received five ante-mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were abrasion and injury No. 4 was lacerated wound and the deceased Arvan had received three ante-mortem injuries in which injuries No. 1 and 2 were gun shot wound of entries and injury No. 3 was abrasion. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri M. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the Jungle, the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of the occurrence is highly doubtful because no body received any injury. Even according to the prosecution version, it has not been seen by any witness that how and in what manner the deceased Harpal Singh was murdered. It is said that eight persons including the applicant discharged the shots by their fire-arm namely gun, country made pistol and rifle, consequently the deceased Arvan received injuries. According to the post-mortem examination report of deceased Arvan, he has received only two gun shot wound of entries and one abrasion whereas the role of firing is assigned to eight persons. It has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased and the recovery of the gun at the pointing out of the applicant has been falsely shown by the police. The recovery has not been supported by any independent witness. The deceased Arvan was a hardened criminal, he was involved in many criminal cases and the deceased Harpal Singh was also his associate. The co-accused Narain Singh, Shyam Singh, Dhanesh Kumar and Charan Singh and Onkar Singh have been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 28.7.2006 and the co-accused Bhoora has been released on bail by this Court on 12.9.2006. The case of the applicant is on the same footing with the case of co-accused Bhoora and other co-accused persons, therefore he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Bhoora who has been released on bail by this Court on the ground that at the pointing out of the applicant, one country made pistol which was used in commission of the alleged offence, was recovered and the applicant is having criminal history. He is involved in seven cases triable by the Court of sessions. IN case is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence Therefore he may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, I am of the view that the applicant is having criminal background, who is involved in seven cases triable by the Court of sessions, therefore his case is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Bhoora and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.;