Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Mintoo alias Anirudh Pandey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1138 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Padrauna, district Kushi Nagar.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Manish Pratap Singh on 9.9.2006 at 5.40 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9.9.2006 at about 5.20 p.m. THE distance of the police station was about half kilometer from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant, his wife and one unknown miscreant allegedly committed this offence. It is alleged that on 9.9.2006 at about 5.20 p.m., the deceased had been shot dead by the applicant and some unknown miscreants. THE dead body of the deceased was lying at the door of the applicant. Due to this incident panic was created, the applicant and his associates were identified by Ashok Singh, Moti Lal Singh and others when they were running away. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received two lacerated wounds, in which injury No. 1 was fire arm wound of entry and injury, No. 2 was fire arm wound of exit. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri J. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed. It was not possible to lodge the F.I.R. within twenty minutes, it has not been specifically alleged that whose shot hit the deceased whereas it has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the deceased was shot dead by the applicant and his associates. The nature of the injury shows that it was caused in an accidental firing from a country made pistol which was possessed by the deceased, there was no motive and intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence and no blood was found from the alleged place of occurrence, the place of occurrence is highly disputed. The information regarding the firing was received at the police station Kotwali, Padrauna on 9.9.2006 at 5.30 p.m., whereas the F.I.R. was lodged at 5.40 p.m. and no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer about any money transaction whatsoever in between the applicant and the deceased. The statement of one Chhaya Srivastava the tenant of the applicant was recorded by the Investigating Officer. According to her statement also it was the wife of the applicant who asked her son to call the doctor for providing the proper medical aid to the deceased. According to her statement the applicant was not present at the alleged place of occurrence. According to her statement one country made pistol was also seen by her on a Takhat near the deceased. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents but the chain of the circumstance is not complete, therefore, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is the person who caused gun shot injury on the person of the deceased. The alleged offence was committed at the door of the applicant, the applicant was seen by the witnesses, he was having country made pistol in his hand. During investigation the sufficient evidence has been collected by the INvestigating Officer against the applicant to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The Takhat was having the blood but it was washed out by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased succumbed to his injuries in the hospital before getting any medical aid. The applicant was having a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P., learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.;