- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Brijendra with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 5/19 of 2007 under sections 302 IPC and section 3 (2) (5) SC/st Act, P. S. Jhinjhana, District Muzaffarnagar.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Brijpal on 13. 1. 2007 at 8. 45 A. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 13. 1,2007 at about 5. 00 A. M. THE distance of the police station concerned was about six kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence, the applicant and co-accused Ramfal and two unknown miscreants allegedly committed the offence. It is alleged that the deceased Pushpendra @ Pinki and his cousin Sub-hash had gone to the place of occurrence on 13. 1. 2007 at about 5. 00 A. M. for irrigation purpose, when they reached near the crasher, the applicant, co-accused Ramfal and two unknown miscreants, after having some conversation with the deceased, the applicant and co-accused Ramfal discharged the shots by their country made pistols, consequently the deceased sustained injuries, thereafter he fell down. THE co-accused persons discharged the shots towards the witness Subhash also but he escaped successfully towards the village from where the villagers Jai Kumar, Sat-veer and Vikram and other villagers came at the place of occurrence, at that time all the four co-accused persons including, the applicant were setting the deceased on fire after pouring the oil. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained one fire arm wound of the entry and superfluous to deep burn injuries on all over the body except below both the knees joints. THE applicant applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Muzaffarnagar who rejected the same on 4. 12. 2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 4. 12. 2007 the applicant has moved the present bail application. Heard Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that: - 1. According to the FIR the applicant and co-accused Ramfal discharged the shots causing the fire arm injuries on the person of the deceased. But according to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained only one gun shot injury, it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased. 2. The presence of the first informant Subhash at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. He is cousin of the deceased and nephew of the first informant. He did not receive any injury. There is no other witness of the first part of the incident in which the fire arm injury was caused on the person of the deceased. But the presence of the witnesses of the second part of the incident is also highly doubtful because they had reached at the place of occurrence when the deceased was being set on fire after pouring the oil. 3. It is further contended that the first informant has made some material improvement in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. alleging therein that the shots were discharged by the applicant, co-accused Ramfal and two unknown miscreants, consequently the deceased has sustained gun shot injuries, whereas in FIR the role of causing the gun shot injury is assigned to the applicant and co-accused Ramfal but according to the statement of the sole eyewitness Subhash the deceased was caught hold by the applicant and other co-accused persons in side the hall of the crasher, he had witnessed the incident in a torch light from the different side of the hall at the distance of 7 or 8 paces. At that time the applicant and co-accused Ramfal were having the country made pistols. The two other unknown miscreants were covering their faces. The applicant and co-accused Ramfal caused injury on the person of the deceased by fire arm, thereafter he turned back and started running, thereafter in the company of Jai Kumar, Satveer and others he again came on the place of the occurrence and saw the dead body in a burnt condition. 4. He stated that the applicant and co-accused Ramfal get the sale deed executed fraudulently in respect of sixteen Beeghas land, in respect of which the litigation was pending for the last 16 years. Thereafter the statement of Satveer was recorded who stated that he was informed by the witness Sub-hash that shot discharged by the applicant had caused injury on the person of the deceased. The same statement had given by witness Jai Kumar. The presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful and it was interested and partisan.
(3.) THE alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night, in the morning the dead body was found, thereafter the FIR has been lodged only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. THE applicant has been falsely implicated. The co-accused Ramfal whose case is based on the same footing with the case of the applicant has been released on bail by the another bench of this Court on 14. 11. 2007 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12246 of 2007, therefore, the applicant may also be given the benefit of parity with co-accused Ramfal. 5. In reply the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case the Subhash is eye-witness of the first part of the incident and other persons are witness of the second part of the incident. The prosecution story is fully supported by the medical evidence because the deceased had sustained fire arm injury and burn injury. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The co-accused Ramfal has been released on bail by the another bench of this on the basis of statement of Satveer Singh who has stated that he was informed by the witness Subhash that shot discharged by the applicant has hit the deceased and the case of the applicant has been distinguished by the another bench of this Court granting the bail to the co-accused Ramfal, herefore the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the co-accused Ramfal. It is further contended that gravity of the offence is too much, in this case, first of all, gun shot injury was caused on the person of the deceased, thereafter he was set on fire. All the injuries are ante mortem injuries. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. 6. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made of 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. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .;