Shiv Shanker - (1.) -Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no specific role has been assigned in the F.I.R. as well as statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. as to who opened fire upon the deceased and injured while firing has been made by three accused persons. It is further contended that injured was sleeping at one cot along with his father and there was enmity with his father. However, he was not killed and he sustained one fire arm injury on the upper part of the left fore arm and it has also not been assigned as to who caused such injury on him among three accused persons. It is further contended that this is the incident of dark night and electric light has been shown on behalf of prosecution at the time of incident but record of sub-station, Jasrana dated 21.11.06 shows that there was no electric light in the area at the time of incident. In such circumstances, identification of the assailants has become suspicious. It is further contended that not any cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence at the time of preparing site plan. Injured was the son of informant. Therefore, after getting chance, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is further contended that servant of informant has been murdered. There was no motive to commit murder of deceased by the applicant. Wife of deceased Asha Ram had deserted him long ago and has been living in a different village with some other person and wanted to eliminate the deceased and take over the landed property of the deceased. Therefore, just after the death of deceased, she got her name mutated over the agricultural plot of deceased and sold the same to Dauji Ram and Harnam Singh. Therefore, perhaps unknown person committed murder of deceased in the dark night and applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity.
(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. The F.I.R. has been lodged promptly within 1.30 minutes after covering distance of 11 kilometres from the place of occurrence, wherein the present applicant and co-accused Jai Kishore and Sophali have been named. It has been specifically stated in the F.I.R. as well as statement of witnesses given to Investigating Officer that the informant and his son Rahul Kumar were lying on one cot and servant of informant Bijendra Singh was lying on another cot. On 21.11.06 at 9.30 p.m., the applicant along with two above co-accused persons armed with fire arms reached there and opened fire upon them. Consequently, Bijendra sustained injuries and Rahul Kumar also sustained fire arm injury and the informant luckily saved due to running away from there. Therefore, all the three accused persons including the present applicant, in furtherance of common intention, opened fire upon the deceased as well as injured person. Consequently, the deceased and injured sustained fire arm injuries. Later on Bijendra Singh died on the spot. This version is also supported with the post-mortem report of the deceased as well as injury report of the injured. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is not expected from the injured witness that he will implicate the applicant falsely after exonerating real culprit. The presence of injured witness is guaranteed relating to time and place of incident. Injured sustained one fire arm injury and it could not be manufactured to become eye-witness. This is the case of direct evidence and motive has no significance, although motive has been given in the F.I.R. that the applicant had not given Rs. 1,535 of the charges relating to irrigation which was demanded at about 2 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, co-accused Sophali had extended threatening to kill in future and on the same day in the night at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased was killed and injured also sustained injury.
(3.) BOTH the parties are residents of same village. They knew each other prior to the alleged incident. Therefore, the applicant along with co-accused persons could easily be identified by the structure and voice even in the dark night. Therefore, this contention has no force that identity of assailants is doubtful in absence of any electric light. In such circumstances the F.I.R. has been lodged promptly. The contention made by learned counsel for the applicant has no force and it is not liable to be deemed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the bail application of the present applicant is not liable to be allowed.;