Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Kranti with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1127 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Chandpur, district Bijnor.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mahmood Ali on 4.8.2006 at 6.30 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.8.2006 at about 5.30 p.m., the distance of the Police Station was about 1-1/2 kms. from the alleged place of the occurrence. Applicant and other co-accused Gaurav alias Sonu are named as accused and two accused persons are unknown. It is alleged that the deceased Dr. Islamuddin was elected Pradhan of village Heempur Bugurg. On 4.8.2006 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased alongwith his wife Smt. Nazma were coming from Chandpur to their village after taking the medicine. When the deceased reached near H.P. Petrol Pump, four persons came on two motor-cycles from the back side and the motor-cycle of the deceased was stopped by them and at the exhortation of the co-accused Gaurav, the applicant and co-accused Gaurav discharged shots at the deceased by their pistols. By that time, wife of the first informant was caught hold by two unknown miscreants. THE deceased died instantaneously due to fire arm injuries. THE accused persons were chased by the people who came at the place of the occurrence but they fled away towards Noorpur. Due to firing done by the applicant and other two accused persons, a panic was created and atmosphere of fear and terror was created and public order was totally disturbed. THE dead body of the deceased was lying on the roadside. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received 11 ante-mortem injuries in which fire arm wounds of entries were six in numbers, its exit wounds were four in number and one injury was lacerated wound. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mahipal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Mohd. Afzal learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of the occurrence was highly doubtful because they have not received any injury and they have not made efforts to save the life of the deceased. The alleged occurrence had taken place at a lonely place which was committed by some unknown persons but due to police partybandi, the applicant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the post-mortem examination report because nature of the fire arm wound of entries shows that all injuries were caused by one weapon and the applicant was h no motive to commit the alleged offence. The applicant is innocent, the applicant was having no concern with the election of village Pradhan, he has been falsely implicated because the applicant's brother had lodged the F.I.R. against deceased on 27.7.2005, as Case Crime No. 1179 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 435, I.P.C., P.S. Chandpur, district Bijnor. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed any offence, so 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 alleged occurrence had taken place in the broad day light, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the allegation of causing injury on the person of the deceased by fire arm is against the applicant and co-accused Gaurav, the deceased had received many fire arm injuries, the alleged occurrence has been committed by the applicant and other co-accused persons in the presence of the witnesses and the applicant was having criminal antecedents and he was having enmity with the deceased as the applicant's brother had lodged the F.I.R. against the deceased, the deceased had been murdered on a public way. Due to this incident, a panic was created in the area, the gravity of the offence is too much. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering facts, circumstances of the case, role of allegedly causing the fire arm injury assigned to the applicant, the gravity of the offence is too much, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.;