- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicants Manoj Shahu and Lalu @ Lala Ram with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 1286 of 2006 under sections 307, 302,504 IPC, P. S. Kotwali, District Jhansi.
(2.) THE facts in brief, of this case are that FIR has been lodged by Veeru @ Virendra Kushwaha on 21. 8. 2006 at 2. 00 A. M. at P. S. Kotwali in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20. 8. 2006 at about 11 P. M. THE FIR has been lodged against accused Omi Shahu, Rinku, Manoj Shahu and Lalu @ Lala Ram with the allegation that the applicants and other co-accused came at the house of the first informant on 20. 8. 2006 at about 11. 00 P. M. , at the house of the first informant, there was a Katha function on 20. 8. 2006, at the time of the arrival of the accused persons, the informant, his father deceased Ram Kishan and his other family members were seeing off their guests. THEre was a sufficient electric light at the house of the first informant. THE accused Omi Sahu, Rinku, Lalu @ Lala Ram were armed with country made pistols and applicant Manoj Sahu was armed with Rifle, they came at the door of the first informant, on account of old enmity and hurled abuses, it was objected by the deceased consequently the accused persons discharged the shot at the deceased and Suresh, the servant of the first informant, the deceased sustained injury on his chest, thereafter all the four accused persons left the place of the occurrence. THE deceased and injured Suresh were taken to the medical collage, Jhansi where the deceased was declared dead by the doctors and injured Suresh was admitted in the hospital for treatment. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased sustained four injuries, in which injury No. 1 was gun shot wound of entry on the left side of chest, its exit wound was injury No. 2. Injury No. 3 was lacerated wound on 16 cm below left elbow and injury No. 4 was lacerated wound on 18 cm. below left elbow. THE medical examination report of injured Suresh shows that he sustained a fire arm wound of entry on the right upper chest. THE applicants applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi who rejected the same on 21. 9. 2006, being aggrieved from the order dated 21. 9. 2006 the present bail application has been filed. Heard Sri V. C. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hari Om Tiwari and Sri Roshan Khan, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night. The alleged occurrence was committed by some unknown persons (but due to ill will of the first informant the applicants have been falsely implicated. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence because according to the prosecution version the accused Manoj Shahu was armed with Rifle and the remaining accused Lalu @ Lala Ram, Omi Shahu and Rinku were armed with country made pistols. But according to the postmortem examination report the deceased had sustained only one gun shot wound of entry, it was having blackening, tattooing and burning, it was caused from a very closed range but it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased. The injuries No. 3 and 4 are lacerated wounds which may be caused due to fall or by some other hard and blunt object. Whereas no hard and blunt object has been used in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the site plan because according to the site plan the deceased and injured sustained injuries at place +a and firing was done from place +b, the distance between A and B is i2 paces, from such a long distance blackening, tattooing and burning may not be caused. Which shows that the alleged occurrence has taken place in some other manner. The time of the alleged occurrence is highly disputed because according to the wed head ticket of the injured Suresh the alleged occurrence had taken place at about 1. 00 A. M. , he was admitted in the hospital on 21. 8. 2006 at 1. 25 A. M. where the time of the incident was mentioned about 1. 00 A. M. on 21. 8. 2006 as told by the patient attendant The presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The FIR is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story, all the witnesses are family members of the first informant. The deceased was hardened criminal, he was involved in several criminal cases, he was having multi-corner enmity. The applicants are having no criminal antecedents, they may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A and learned Counsel for the complainant that due to old enmity the alleged offence has been committed by the applicants and other co-accused persons. On the day of the alleged offence there was a Katha function at the house of the first informant, there was a sufficient light at the place of the occurrence. The applicants and other co-accused persons came at the house of the first informant with fire arm and discharged the shot, consequently one person lost his life and one person sustained injuries, The FIR has been promptly lodged at 2. 00 A. M. The distance of the police station was about one and half kilometre from the alleged place of occurrence. The injured was immediately brought to the hospital where he was admitted on 21. 8. 2006 at 1. 15 A. M. The injured had sustained two gun shot wounds of entry and one abrasion. The injuries were having blackening and tattooing. The deceased had sustained gun shot wound of entry on the chest having its exit wound and injuries No. 3 and 4 were also caused by firm arm. The alleged occurrence had been witnessed by so many persons. There is injured witness to support the prosecution story. IN the present case the country made pistols have also been used and a photographic description cannot be given at the time of preparation of the site plan, the minor contradiction in the site plan and medical examination report do not affected the totality of the case. There may be no dispute about the time of the occurrence. It appears that due to confusion, the time of the incident has been mentioned in the wed head ticket as 1. 00 A. M. even it was not possible to reach the hospital within twenty five minutes. On the basis of the entry made in the wed head ticket the time of the occurrence may not be doubtful. There is no circumstance to show that the FIR is ante timed. The applicants are very powerful, in case of release on bail, they shall temper with evidence and will not permit the witness to record the evidence fairly, Therefore, the applicants may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants/learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that the role of firing is assigned to the applicants, the FIR has been promptly lodged, the deceased and injured have sustained gun shot injuries, the offence has been committed at the house of the first informant, on the day of incident there was a Katha function, the gravity of the offence is too much, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and to ensure the fair trial, the applicants are not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Bail Rejected. .;