- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Chandrajeet Yadav with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 231 of 2004 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC P. S. Bidhuna District Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) HEARD Sri O. P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. From the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case FIR has been lodged on 11. 5. 2004 at 10. 30 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 11. 5. 2004 at about 9. 00. a. m. Six persons including the applicant are named in the FIR, and out of which two miscreants were unknown. It is alleged that on 11. 5. 2004 at about 9. 00 a. m. the deceased was returning to his house after attending the marriage of the daughter of Mahipal from the village Hadabpur near Samuwa Railway station Khadesar, the co-accused Dev Narain armed with revolver, co-accused Shiv Singh, co-accused Govind, armed with rifle, and the applicant co-accused Chandravir, co-accused Shyamu and two others unknown co-accused armed with country made pistol and gun surrounded the deceased and discharged the shot, consequently, the deceased fell down after receiving the injuries, the first informant also fell down on hearing the firing sound, many persons came at the place of occurrence and witnessed the alleged incident and gave challenge to the accused persons then they fled away discharging the shots, on account of old enmity the father of the first informant has-been killed. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 8 ante-mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 was firearm would of entry, its exit wound was injury No. 2, injury No. 3 was fire arm wound of entry, its exit wound was injury No. 4, injury No. 5 was firearm wound of entry, its exit wound was injury No. 6, and injury Nos. 6 and 7 were lacerated wounds. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in this case investigation was done by the I. O. who came to the conclusion that the applicant was falsely implicated but under some political pressure the investigation of this case was changed frequently so many times, it is again submitted that according to the prosecution version the applicant was armed with the country made pistol whereas other co-accused persons were armed with the rifle, the nature of the injuries shows that the deceased has sustained only three firearm wounds of entry and two lacerated wounds, total number of the injuries is 5 in number because lacerated wound were also caused by the firearm but the role of firing is assigned, to 8 persons the number of injuries is less than the number of the accused persons which shows that some of the persons have been falsely implicated. In this case the investigation was transferred from one to another agency so many times which also indicates that the prosecution has not come with clean hands.
(3.) IN reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned AGA, that the applicant is an influential persons, he misused his influence due to which the investigation was affected but according to the prosecution version the alleged incident has taken place in a broad day light, the FIR has been promptly lodged specific role of firing is assigned to the applicant and there is no reason of their false implication, in case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and considering the active role of the applicant of firing by firearm on the person of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Bail Rejected. .;