- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Lachhman with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 773 of 2007 under sections 302 and 506 IPC P. S. Koshikalan, District Mathura.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajul Bhargava learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Devendra on 24. 12. 2007 at 11. 50 in respect of the incident which had occurred on 24. 12. 2007 at about 10. 30 a. m. the distance of the police station was about 10 km from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and five other co-accused persons are named in the FIR it is alleged that the deceased was going on the motor-cycle along with his son Gajendra and Niece Sunita, when he reached near Kuiyan turning where the applicant and other co-accused persons were waiting the arrival of the deceased, the co-accused Raghubir used pharsa blow on the person of the deceased consequently, the motorcycle fell down, thereafter, the applicant used a rope in the neck of the deceased and asked to commit his murder, then the co-accused Bhupal and Padam discharged shot by the country made pistol, which hit the deceased, the co-accused Vijendra also discharged shots which also hit the deceased, thereafter the co-accused Nawal caused injury on the head of the deceased by using pharsa blow, on shouting of Gajendra and Sunita and hearing the firing sound the applicant and other co-accused persons came at the place of occurrence, the first informant was also caught hold by the accused persons they made attempt to commit his murder by way of strangulation. The alleged occurrence has taken place on account of old enmity and pendency of the litigation. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained 8 ante-mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were incised wounds, injury No. 7 was gun shot wound of entry and injury No. 8 was ligature mark 32 c. m. x 2. 5 c. m. around the neck below thyroid cartridges, according to the medical examination report of the first informant, he has sustained two abrasions on the right left side of the neck, it is contended that in the present case FIR is ante timed, it is not in existence at the time of lodging FIR, the alleged FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 506 IPC but the inquest report was prepared under section 302 IPC subsequently, under sections 147 and 149, IPC was added but section 506 IPC is not present in the inquest report and other documents prepared by the I. O. The letter sent to the C. M. O. was also prepared by the officer in charge of the police station concerned under section 302 IPC in which sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC was added and the injury caused by the applicant was not found fatal and the co-accused Vinod also allegedly caused gun shot injury, has been released on bail, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail. It is further contended that in the challan Nash (Police Form No. 13) the time of lodging the FIR and the time of sending the dead body to the headquarter have not been mentioned to show that the FIR was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report.
(3.) IN reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case FIR has been promptly lodged, the alleged occurrence has been witnessed by independent persons also, the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post-mortem examination report, active role of causing ligature mark on the neck of the deceased has been assigned to the applicant, the accused Vijendra has been released on bail only because the allegation against him was that he discharged shot which hit on the leg of the deceased but according to the post-mortem examination report there was no gun shot injury on the leg of the deceased and so far as non-mentioning of the sections in the inquest report and other papers is concerned, cannot be given more importance, than ocular version, the discrepancy made in the inquest report and other documents, may be seen at the time of trial, and the trial, the Court may seek its explanation from the officer concerned. IN case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and considering the active role of the applicant and the postmortem examination report, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.;