Shiv Shanker - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
(2.) THE above bail applications have been moved in Case Crime No. 654 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahr. THEir both the bail applications are being disposed of by this common order. According to the prosecution case in brief as per F.I.R., Gajendra Singh and others assaulted upon Mukesh, husband of the first informant Manju Verma on 27.9.2005, to commit his murder wherein Indrapal sustained injuries, therefore son of applicant Gajendra had enmity with her husband and her family members and due to this reason, on 5.11.2005 at 2.30 p.m. when she and her husband Mukesh were sitting at their shop. Accused Gajendra Singh and his sons Manoj and Chatrapal armed with knife, Indrapal, Babloo, Mahipal and Sonu Sharma alias Sonveer armed with country made pistol and revolver reached at her shop and entered into it. Thereafter Gajendra Singh assaulted and inflicted knife injuries on his chest and on his exhortation, Babloo, Mahipal and Sonu alias Sonveer opened fire with intent to kill him which was hit on the person of her husband and one Mukesh, son of Chandra Kishore as he had come to purchase articles from the shop. Other accused Manoj and Chatrapal also inflicted knife injuries on the person of her husband. After raising alarm, several person reached there and Farookh with the help of other persons took the deceased in injured condition alongwith injured Mukesh to Hospital, Bulandshahr from where he was referred to Yashoda Hospital Ghaziabad where Mukesh was operated and admitted in the I.C.U., thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged against all the accused persons. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. has been lodged as ante-time. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 5.11.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. and at about 3.03 p.m., wireless message had been flashed from the police station Kotwali to City Control Room and District Control Room that three miscreants on motor cycle had caused injuries on shopkeeper and one miscreant had sustained gun-shot injuries himself. The police have been sent on the spot. This fact shows that there was information in the police station Kotwali Nagar at 3.03 p.m., district Bulandshahr regarding it. After flashing the aforesaid wireless message, the police constables Satendra and Narendra were sent on the spot and deceased was taken to hospital by these police constables and family members of the deceased and these details have also been noted in the general diary of the police station but despite specific request made by applicants before the Court below to summon these documents and despite summoning of these documents from the concerned police station, these documents including register and wireless message, copy of general diary, etc. have not been produced by the prosecution before the court below, therefore, name of applicants was not in picture by that time of wireless message. Subsequently with the legal concentration, name of the applicants has been shown as accused persons in the present case.
(3.) THUS, contention of learned counsel for the applicants regarding lodging the F.I.R. as ante-time has no force. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 5.11.2005 at 2.30 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 6.30 p.m. after four hours of the alleged occurrence. Sufficient explanation has been given on behalf of prosecution that Mukesh who was husband of the first informant was serious according to injuries. Therefore, firstly treatment was necessary in place of lodging the F.I.R. firstly. In such circumstance, the husband of first informant was taken to hospital, from where he was referred to Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad where he was got admitted and he was being treated in I.C.U. of Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad. After that she lodged the F.I.R., therefore, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. So far as the contention of wireless-message is concerned it may be only hearsay, much weight cannot be given upon it in place of statement of eye-witnesses, although such wireless-message has been denied in counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State, therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that the applicants were not in picture upto 3.03 p.m. when the alleged wireless message was flashed and later on they have been implicated on the legal advice.;