Shiv Shanker, J. - (1.) -This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Anant Vijai in case Crime No. 1267 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 504, I.P.C., P. S. Kotwali Nagar Etah, district Etah.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and S./Sri R. C. Pandey and N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A., as well as perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased sustained injuries on his thighs. Therefore, there was no intention to kill the deceased. It is further contended that there was no repetition to cause injuries on the person of injured. Therefore, the same were not caused with intent to commit murder of deceased. Shop in question has already been vacant. In such circumstances, the incident could not be occurred by the applicant. It is further contended that one person was shot dead and two persons sustained injuries in the alleged incident on the side of complainant. On the other hand, three persons Anant Vijai (present applicant) Sanju Jain and Agyan Vijai sustained injuries Nos. 1, 4, 3 and 8 respectively and both the sides lodged the F.I.Rs. In such circumstances, there is a cross case regarding the present occurrence. In such circumstances, it cannot be determined at this stage as to which party was aggressor. It is further contended that the applicant had licensed NPB-32 pistol which was deposited by him in M/s. Chauhan Gun house on 6.10.07. A copy of certificate issued by the firm is available on record vide Annexure-14. Therefore, such pistol could not be used by the applicant at the time of alleged incident on 12.10.07. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A., have urged that the applicant is main assailant to commit murder of deceased and the cross F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of application moved under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. At this stage, injuries shown to be sustained on the side of accused-applicant are superficial in nature as contusion, abrasion, abraded contusion etc., were found. Cross case has been manufactured for taking benefit and pressurising the prosecution witnesses by naming all the injured persons including the deceased. Therefore, cross version is not liable to be considered.
(3.) APPLICANT Anant Vijai is named in the F.I.R. alongwith four named co-accused persons and the same has been lodged within 55 minutes after covering distance of 1 kilometre from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly against the present applicant also. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant alongwith four named accused persons reached at the shop of complainant and his both younger brothers as they were carrying on sweets business in the said shops and accused party is owner of the said shop. He abused them for vacating the shop, wherein it was objected by the informant and his two younger brothers as the case was pending in the civil court regarding shops. Thereafter all the accused persons including present applicant made firing upon them. Consequently, shots of present applicant were hit on the thighs of deceased who succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day and co-accused Hari Sahai and Agyan Vijay caused injuries on the person of injured Bhojraj and co-accused Sanju Jain also caused butt injury on the person of informant Ram Prakash. Prosecution version is also supported with the post mortem report of the deceased as ante mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report.;