- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Ashish Rawat alias Kakku in case crime No. 274 of 2008. under sections 302/201, I. P. C. , P. S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad.
(2.) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant assisted by Dr. G. S. D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri P. K. Singh learned Counsel for complain ant and learned A. G. A. as well as perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the F. I. R. was lodged on 20. 5. 2008 at about 8. 15 A. M. regarding oc currence dated 20. 5. 08 in the morning by Ranjeet Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh against unknown miscreants. On the same day, inquest report was prepared regard ing dead body of deceased as unknown. Later on, it was identified by his father as dead body of Sintu alias Shirish, son of Rajendra Bahadur Singh, resident of village Narain Das ka Purva, police station San-gipur, district Pratapgarh. Thereafter fa ther of deceased Rajendra Bahadur Singh and other signatories namely Suresh Singh (Tau), Brijendra Pratap Singh, brother, Sanjay Singh, brother, Jitendra Pratap Singh, brother (alleged eye-witness Amit Kumar Singh, brother) came to the police station Cantt. Allahabad and submitted written application by stating that there is no doubt of any kind upon any person. This shows that father of deceased and above five signatories had no knowledge as to who committed murder of deceased. It is further contended that state ment of Jitendra Pratap Singh, brother of deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer who claimed to be eye-witnesses of this incident along with one Yogendra Vishwakarma. Amit Kumar Singh is also cousin of deceased. The statement of Amit Kumar Singh has been recorded by the In vestigating Officer in parcha No. 1 wherein it has been stated that Yogendra Vish wakarma who is alleged to be an eye witness has informed on mobile to him by stating that Sintu alias Shirish has been murdered by two unknown persons in his presence. Therefore, Amit Kumar Singh witness received the information from the alleged eye-witness Yogendra Vish-wakarma wherein the applicant has not been named. Later on, the applicant has been named in the statement of this witness Yogendra Vishwakarma by stating that the deceased was murdered by causing fire arm injuries by the present applicant. It is further contended that Jitendra Pratap Singh who is real brother of deceased was also one of signatory in the application moved by father of deceased to the con cerned police station that there is no suspi cion upon any person. This shows that Jitendra Pratap Singh witness did not know till moving the application by father of de ceased as to who committed murder of de ceased. In such circumstances, -Investigat ing Officer has shown witnesses Jitendra Pratap Singh and Yogendra Vishwakarma to be eye-witnesses in this alleged incident by giving colour to the case. It is further contended that statement of Jitendra Pratap Singh witness reveals that he was present at the time of incident in the same room and he saw incident in his presence. Later on, he rushed away from there and stayed the whole night at Prayag Railway Station, from where he has informed to his father in district Pratapgarh but he has not disclosed the name of assailants in information given to his father. Out Post (Police) is also avail able at the Prayag Railway Station and he was staying at Prayag Railway Station, so he could give the information regarding such murder to the out post. The same in formation has not been given to the out post. It is further contended that the con cerned police station was at the distance of one and half kilometres and he could also give information regarding murder of de ceased in the concerned police station. It is very surprising that brother of alleged eye witness Jitendra Pratap Singh was mur dered in his presence and he was quite mum in the said railway station whole night and even he was quite mum up to moving application to the concerned police station on 21. 5. 2008. This shows that above two eye-witnesses have been made by the Investigating Officer for giving colour to the case which is afterthought. It is further contended that love letters were found of one Mona but name of her lover has not been mentioned in such love letters. There fore, it cannot be connected with the de ceased. Statement of Mona has been re corded by the Investigating Officer on his wishes. She has filed an affidavit in not supporting of her alleged statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. Therefore, murder has allegedly taken place in the room of de ceased but there is no reliable evidence on record as to in whose presence the appli cant has committed murder of deceased.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant further contended that the deceased was living in the said room on rent and doing work of Gaskil of witness Amit Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar Singh was having main office in Banaras. The presence of al leged eye-witnesses Jitendra Pratap Singh, Yogendra Vishwakarma and Mona were found suspicious at the time of alleged in cident. On the other hand it is submitted that there is motive against the present applicant as there was love affairs in be tween Mona witness and deceased. Blood etc. were found in the said room. This shows that he was killed in the room of deceased. Mona witness also supported the prosecution version by disclosing her to be eye-witness of this incident. Later on, she has given an affidavit under the influence of her relatives.;