Shiv Shanker - (1.) -This is first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant before this Court in Case Crime No. 363 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. Police Station Babri, district Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case according to the first information report is that Satya Pal informant alongwith his uncle Jawahar Singh was returning on 18.12.2005 from the tube-well and reached near the field of Karan Singh son of Daleep and saw that Smt Kaushlya (wife of informant) and Smt. Santosh (wife of Jasveer) were coming from village after taking meal at about 10.30 a.m. Same time, accused Ranveer, Manupal, Sooraj, Anuj, armed with tamanchas, and Rajendra, armed with Tabal, came there. On the exhortation of accused Ranveer, Manupal, Sooraj and Anuj made firing with their tamanchas upon Karan Singh, Jasveer and Gajendra. Jasveer was also attacked by Rajendra with tabal (sharp edged weapon). Consequently, Karan Singh, Jasveer and Gajendra had died on spot due to the sustaining firearm injuries. Thereafter, they fled away from there. The first information report was lodged by Satya Pal Singh on 18.12.2005 at 11.30 a.m. against all the five accused persons. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. I have also perused the whole records. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that no tabal injury was found on the dead body of deceased Jasveer which was allegedly caused by accused Rajendra. This shows that the first informant Satya Pal was not present at the time of alleged incident. It is further contended that the statements of none of eye-witnesses, except the first informant, were recorded by the Investigating Officer soon-after lodging the first information report. The next witness of fact Jawahar was interrogated on 27.1.2006 after the lapse of one month and ten days in the 15th Parcha of the case diary. The other witnesses Smt. Kaushal alias Kaushlya and Smt. Santosh were also interrogated on the same day. No reason has been given by the prosecution as to why they were interrogated so late. It is further contended that this incident had taken place at a lonely place in the jungle and none of the witnesses were present at the time of incident. The site plan reveals that the place of incident is covered by sugar-cane and wheat fields and it had taken place in the sugar-cane field and in such circumstances, the presence of eye witnesses on the spot, at the time of alleged incident appears to be suspicious. It is further contended that the presence of digested food material in the post mortem reports show that the incident had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. It is further contended that the inquest reports of the deceased persons were prepared first then the first information report was lodged. This fact finds support from the inquest reports itself in which initially the Section of the offence is mentioned as 302, I.P.C. only and rest of the Sections were added at latter stage. All the eye-witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and their interrogation after such a long time also creates doubt about their presence and witnessing the incident. It is further contended that the entire family of the applicant has been implicated in this case and none of the family member has been spared.
(3.) ON the other hand, it is submitted that this is a case of triple murder in broad day light. It is corroborated with the medical evidence. The applicant has been named in the first information report lodged promptly alongwith other accused. The bail application of co-accused Anuj had already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1221 of 2007. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the rejection of bail cannot be a principle of parity.;