Ravindra Singh - (1.) -
(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Ravi Prakash Singh alias Kakkoo with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 507 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C., P. S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur. The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ram Singht P. S. Badlapur on 16.8.2007 at 8.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.8.2007 at about 6.15 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 3 kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant, co-accused Amit Kumar alias Rinku Singh, co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi and co-accused Awadhesh Tripathi are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that on 12.8.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. there had been some quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi in respect of parking of vehicle. On 16.8.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. the first informant and his brother deceased Shyam Singh were going on a motorcycle No. MH 03/X-8041 to their village Kaderepur from Badlapur after purchasing the medicines. But in the way near the bridge of Bhaluahi village at about 6.15 p.m. the applicant and other co-accused persons intercepted the motorcycle of the first informant and the deceased. Thereafter applicant and some other co-accused persons assaulted the deceased by using rod and hockey blows and he alongwith his motorcycle was thrown into water by the assailants. Thereafter the assailants escaped from the place of occurrence. The first informant with the help of other persons took out the deceased from the water by that time he had died. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained nine ante mortem injuries in which injuries 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were lacerated wounds and injuries Nos. 6.8 and 9 were abraded contusions, the applicant applied for bail before learned sessions Judge, Jaunpur, who rejected the same on 9.10.2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 9.10.2007 the applicant has filed the present bail application. Heard Sri Somesh Khare and Smt. Komal Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that : I. The presence of the first informant at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because no attempt was made by the assailants to cause injury on his person even he himself had not made any attempt to save the life of his brother. The prosecution story itself shows that the first informant was not present because the deceased was thrown into water, in case the first informant was present at the alleged place of occurrence the assailant would have escaped leaving the deceased at the place of occurrence. II. The presence of other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful because the alleged occurrence has taken place in a lonely place. III. According to the F.I.R. there was general allegation of causing the injuries by using the rod and hockey blows, no specific weapon was shown in the hands of the applicant but during investigation the statement of the first informant Ram Singh was recorded who stated that applicant, co-accused Sunil Tripathi and Awadhesh Tripathi were armed with iron rods and the co-accused Amit Kumar alias Rinku Singh was armed with hockey. It has been specifically alleged by the first informant that the co-accused Rinku Singh alias Amit Kumar caused injuries on the person of the deceased by using the hockey blows inside the water also. It shows that first of all the deceased was thrown into water thereafter the injuries were caused by the co-accused Rinku Singh alias Amit Kumar by using the hockey blows, consequently the deceased succumbed to his injuries. IV. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report because the deceased has sustained all injuries caused by blunt object and cause of death as a result of ante mortem head injuries. It has not been specified as to who caused the head injuries. V. That some material improvement has been made in the prosecution version during investigation. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. VI. Even according to prosecution version he has no quarrel with the deceased. The house of the applicant was situated at the distance of about 12 kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence. VII. The applicant is innocent, he is having no criminal antecedent. He is in jail since 27.7.2007. He may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the deceased has been murdered in a pre-planed manner. The active role of causing injuries on the person of the deceased by using the iron rod has been assigned to the applicant. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post mrotem examination report, the deceased had sustained nine ante mortem injuries caused by blunt object, in which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, were on the head region, there was a fracture on frontal bone of nose and the left parietal bone, five injuries were found on the head region and all the four accused including the applicant caused the injuries by using the iron rod and hockey, and cause of death was head injury. F.I.R. was promptly lodged which shows that the first informant and other persons had seen the alleged incident. According to the statement of the first informant Ram Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., it has been specifically alleged that first of all the injuries were caused on the person of the deceased by the applicant and other co-accused persons using the iron rod and hockey blows and in addition to eight injuries caused on the person of the deceased, the co-accused Rinku Singh alias Amit Kumar thrown the deceased into the water and caused the hockey blows. Therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused only by co-accused Rinku Singh alias Amit Kumar. The bail application of the co-accused Sunil Kumar Tripathi has been rejected by the another Bench of this Court, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, because the role of causing injuries to the deceased is assigned to the applicant also. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the post mortem examination report, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.;