Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Sri Sanjai Kumar Rai alias Pappu Rai with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 763 of 2006, under Section 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Suhwal, district Ghazipur.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Krishnanand Rai on 12.9.2006 at 8.45 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12.9.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. THE applicant and three other co-accused are named in F.I.R. THE distance of the police station was about 15 kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that there was financial dispute between Parmanand Rai, brother of the first informant and co-accused Deependra Rai alias Pinkal. THEre had been some altercation and marpeet between them on 10.9.2006. THEreafter co-accused Deependra Rai alias Pinkal had paid the amount of dues but extended a threat of life to the deceased. On 12.9.2006 the deceased Chandra Kesh Rai alias Dabbu Rai, son of the first informant was attacked by the applicant and other co-accused persons when he was giving fodder from his field, the applicant and other co-accused were armed with country made pistols, lathis and dandas, the deceased escape to save his life, he was chased by the applicant and other co-accused and he fell in the field of one Suresh Rai. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received six ante-mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1 and 3 were firearm wounds of entry, injury Nos. 2 and 4 were firearm wounds of exit, injury No. 5 was lacerated wound and injury No. 6 was abrassed contusion. THE statements of the first informant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer. THEy clearly stated that Deependra Rai alias Pinkal, applicant and Ajai Rai alias Naga Rai caused injuries on the person of the deceased by using firearm and co-accused Ajit Rai had caused injury by using lathi blows. Heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P., Sri J. S. Sengar, Sri, C. S. Rai and Sri R. N. Rai, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role has been shown in the F.I.R. against the applicant. The F.I.R. is ante-timed, it was not possible to lodge within 45 minutes after covering the distance of 15 kilometers. The alleged occurrence had not taken place at about 8.00 a.m. but it would have been taken place in the night because the large intestine was having gases and faecal matter and the small intestine was having gases and liquid and the stomach of the deceased was empty. The alleged occurrence had taken in lonely place outside the village abadi. The presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful and it has been specifically alleged that the shots discharged by the co-accused Deependra Rai alias Pinkal hit the deceased, thereafter the applicant and co-accused Ajai Rai alias Naga Rai discharged the shots. According to the post mortem examination report only injury No. 1 was fatal injury, injury No. 3 firearm wound of entry was on the left knee, it was on non vital part of the body and it was not fatal and the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and he has having no criminal antecedents.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that in the present case the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, The alleged occurrence had taken place in broad-day light. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. It has been specifically alleged that applicant has also caused injury by the firearm and deceased had received two gun shot wounds of entry and one lacerated wound. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, considering the allegation made against the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.;