- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Rajveer Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 91 of 2007, under section 302 IPC, P. S. Saifai, District Etawah.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajul Bhargava and Bhishm Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Rajeev Khare, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is alleged that the deceased was having shops at Karhal, its rent was realis ing by the deceased, the deceased was ma ternal uncle of the first informant. Some of the land was sold by the deceased to the first informant by way of executing a sale deed. Due to this reason one Narsingh, son-in-law of the deceased became too much annoyed with the deceased. On 11. 8. 2007 the deceased was going on a cycle, Ravindra Pal and his mother were going on a cycle, they were lagging behind the de ceased. On 11. 8. 2007 at about 5. 00 P. M. the cycle of the deceased was pushed by a Maruti car in which the applicant and co-accused Narsing, the son-in-law of the de ceased were boarding, its driver was un known person, consequently the deceased fell down then the applicant and co-accused Rajveer came from the Maruti Car and caused injury on the person of the de ceased. The deceased in a injured condition was admitted to Saifai hospital where his treatment was going on and the FIR was lodged under section 307 IPC but the de ceased succumbed to his injuries at 0. 30 A. M. on 12. 8. 2007, the case was converted under section 302 IPC. According to medi cal examination report the deceased had sustained four injuries in which injury No. 1 was gun shot wound of entry which was oval in shape, its margin are charred, its exit wound was injury No. 2, injury No. 3 was also gun shot wound of entry it was also oval in shape, injury No. 4 was lacer ated wound on right side of lower lip, it was shown in through and through. Ac cording to post-mortem examination report also the injury No. 1 was fire arm wound of entry, its exit wound was injury No. 2, in jury No. 3 was fire arm wound of entry, its exit was injury No. 4. but it shows that the deceased was taken to the hospital by Ravindra Pal. The submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant that Ravindra Pal himself committed the mur der of the deceased to usurp the shops of the deceased because after the death of the deceased, he filed a forged will and ap proached town area for its mutation. The same has been challenged by the daughter of the deceased Smt. Mithilesh by way of filing the original suit No. 294 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mainpuri. It was unregis tered will because deceased was having no son. In reply of this contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in case the first informant had caused the injury, the deceased would not have been taken to the hospital by the first informant because according to the medical examination re port it is clearly mentioned that the de ceased was taken to the hospital by the first informant Ravindra Pal. The will executed by the deceased is separate issue. It is not concern with the alleged offence and the deceased was living with first informant. The strong motive was to the son-in-law of the deceased because after his death the daughter of the deceased was entitled to get the shop of the deceased.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circum stance of the case, submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. learned Coun sel for the complainant and without con sidering 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. Application Rejected. .;