Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This bail application has been filed by the applicant Tribhuwan Nath alias Pappu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of U. P. Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Karchhana, District Allahabad.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Gyan Shanker Pandey on 10.7.2007 at 7.30 p.m. at Police Station Karchhana, District Allahabad in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.7.2007 at about 3.00 p.m. at his house, the distance of the Police Station was about 10 kilometres from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and six other co-accused are named in the F.I.R. whereas some other miscreants were unknown. It is alleged that prior to the alleged incident some quarrel has taken place on 9.7.2007, due to that quarrel on 10.7.2007 at about 3.00 p.m. the first informant, his family members and some other relatives were sitting at the house of the first informant and were having some conversation. In the meantime co-accused Rajendra Prasad armed with licensed gun, applicant armed with rifle, co-accused Uma Shanker and co-accused Rama Shanker armed with pistols 315 and 12 bores and co-accused Anand Babu, co-accused Guru Prasad, co-accused Sunil Kumar who were armed with fire arms raided the house of the first informant and discharged the shots indiscriminately by their fire arms. THE shot discharged by the applicant hit on the chest of the deceased Zila Jeet Pandey, the shot discharged by co-accused Rajendra Prasad hit the injured Gopal, the shot discharged by the Rama Shanker hit the first informant and the shot discharged by Uma Shanker and others hit the injured Shashi Kant. THEreafter one Krishna Kumar and sisters of the first informant came at the place of occurrence, at their shouting many villagers came at the place of occurrence, then the applicant and other co-accused persons left the place of occurrence by way of discharging the shots. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased Zila Jeet Pandey sustained one fire arm wound of entry having its exit wound. THE injured Gopal Ji Pandey has sustained two lacerated wounds, the injured Gyan Shanker Pandey sustained a lacerated wound and the injured Shashi Kant Pandey also sustained lacerated wound. THE applicant applied for bail before learned District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad who rejected the same on 23.1.2008, being aggrieved from the order dated 23.1.2008 the present bail application has been filed by the applicant. Heard Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri V. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against the applicant are false and frivolous which have been made on account of ill-will of the first informant. The prosecution story is not corroborated by medical evidence. The prosecution has not come with clean hands, because there is cross version of the alleged incident also. From side of the applicant, the applicant himself and his brother Rama Shanker had sustained gun shot injuries, the same have not been explained by the prosecution, due to fear of the first informant and others the applicant was not permitted to go at the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. Ultimately the applicant and his brother Rama Shanker were arrested by the police and they were medically examined on 28.7.2007 at 11 a.m. and 11.10 a.m. respectively at P.H.C. Karchhana, Allahabad. According to the medical examination report the applicant had sustained multiple (four in number) wounds with charring on the back of right scapula. In X-ray report radio opec metallic density foreign bodies seen in right side back in soft tissues, they were four in number and the brother of the applicant injured Rama Shanker had also sustained multiple fire arm wound of various size with charring on the left side on chest nine cm. above the left nipple. In X-ray report almost three wounds Radio opec shadow of metallic density were seen in left side upper part of chest in soft tissues. The applicant moved the application dated 12.9.2007 under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad with a prayer that the officer-in-charge of P. S. Karchhana may be directed to register the case and investigate the same, the same was allowed. In pursuance of that order the F.I.R. was registered on 29.9.2007 at 11.30 a.m. in Case Crime No. 208 of 2007 under Sections 307, 504, 506, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C., P. S. Karchhana, District Allahabad. It is further contended that at this stage it cannot be decided that which of the party was aggressor. The co-accused Rajendra Prasad who allegedly caused the fire arm injury on the person of the injured Gopal has been released on bail by this Court on 19.2.2008 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4735 of 2008 and the co-accused Uma Shanker who allegedly caused fire arm injuries on the person of the injured Shashi Kant has also been released on bail by this Court on 22.1.2008 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1999 of 2008 and the co-accused Anand Babu and Guru Prasad have also been released on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 5.2.2008. The applicant is man of peace loving, he may also be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that applicant is main accused who discharged the shot by his rifle causing the injury on the person of the deceased Zila Jeet Pandey who sustained one fire arm injury having 1 1 cm. cavity deep on the mid of the chest having blackening and tattooing, its exit wound was injury No. 2 having the dimension of 3 2 cm. on the right side of back on the chest. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post-mortem examination report. The other co-accused persons have caused injuries on the person of the injured, they have not caused injury on the person of the deceased. The injury caused by other co-accused persons were not dangerous to life that is why they have been released on bail, their case is distinguishable with the case of the applicant. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The applicant and other co-accused persons in a pre-planned manner attacked at the house of the first informant where they discharged the shots, consequently one person had lost the life and three persons sustained injuries. IN that incident neither the applicant nor his brother Rama Shanker had sustained any injury. Because in the medical examination report of the applicant and his brother Rama Shanker shows that they were medically examined on 18.3.2008 after eight days of the alleged incident. According to medical examination report of the applicant and his brother Rama Shanker the dimension of the injuries have not been noted. The medical examination report of the applicant and his brother Rama Shanker are not reliable at all. Even according to the version taken by the applicant the places of the occurrence of both the incidents are not same. According to the version taken by the applicant the incident had taken place at the agricultural field when they were ploughing the same by a tractor. According to the prosecution version of this case the alleged incident had taken place at the house of the first informant. IN any case, it cannot be said that the applicant and his brother Rama Shanker have sustained any injury in the same incident in which the deceased and three persons sustained injuries. It is further contended that even application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., has been filed alongwith a forged affidavit of the applicant because on the day of filing of that affidavit the applicant was detained in jail, therefore, the learned Magistrate concerned had registered a separate case against the applicant in respect of false affidavit. The F.I.R. has been registered in pursuance of order passed under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., was properly investigated and after investigation the I.O. came to the conclusion that no such incident had occurred, therefore, submitted the final report. The version taken by the applicant was found false and frivolous. The applicant may not be able to get any benefit of release of co-accused Rajendra Prasad, Uma Shanker, Anand Babu and Guru Prasad because their case is distinguishable with the case of the applicant because the applicant is main accused who discharged the shot by rifle causing the injury on the person of the deceased and other co-accused persons have not caused any injury on the person of the deceased. The allegation against them was of causing the injuries on the person of the injured and the case of the applicant has already been distinguished and the orders dated 22.1.2008 and 19.2.2008 granting bail to the co-accused Uma Shanker and Rajendra Prasad. IN case the applicant released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence, therefore, applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that the allegation against the applicant is that he caused the fire arm injury on the person of the deceased and in cross-case the final report has been submitted. The case of the co-accused Rajendra Prasad, Anand Babu, Uma Shanker and Guru Prasad is distinguishable with the case of the applicant because the co-accused have been released on bail mainly on the ground that they have not caused any injury on the person of the deceased. The allegation against them is of causing injury on the person of the injured, the injuries were not dangerous to life 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.;