- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. K. Singh and Sri Yogendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant/ learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Sarvesh, learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version the alleged occurrence has taken place in between 8. 00 P. M. on 10. 3. 2008 to 4. 00 A. M on 11. 3. 2008. ITs FIR has been lodged on 11. 3. 2008 at 5. 45 A. M. In which it is alleged that on account of the love affairs the deceased has been mur dered by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased was catch hold by the applicant Vishram Singh, co-accused Shiv Shankar Singh, co-accused Shyam Singh, co- accused Kaptan Singh, co-accused Sonu Singh, he was brutally beaten and taken to their house where he was shot dead. IT shows that the alleged incident was not witnessed by the first informant and other witnesses. The FIR has been lodged only on the basis of information given by the deceased, after giving the in formation he died. But according to the post-mortem examination report it appears that the injuries sustained by the deceased were of such nature causing the death in stantaneously. IT shows that he was not in a position to give any information. The alle gation made against the applicant is that when first informant came near the dead body, the applicant and other co-accused persons made the confession statement be fore the first informant is also absolutely false and baseless. IT is further contended that the dead body of the deceased was not found at the house of the applicant. Ac cording to the sight plan the dead body was found in other place, it was on the roof of one Ram Balak Shukla, it was not on the roof of the applicant. IT is further con tended that during investigation it has been alleged that the dead body of the deceased was thrown on the near by house, which is false because according to the sight plan the house of Ram Balak Shukla was not adjoining the house of the applicant. Be tween both the houses there was house of Ashok Kumar, Bhagwan Singh and Munna Singh. Whereas it has been wrongly men tioned in the inquest report that the roof where the dead body was found was of a house adjoining to the roof of co-accused Shiv Shanker Singh, it is not corroborated by the sight plan. IT is further contended that the FIR of this case is ante timed and applicant was having no motive to commit ted the alleged offence, the applicant is in nocent, he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that dead body of the deceased was found on the roof of house of Ram Balak Shukla, it was ad joining house of the accused, but to give some details, it was separately placed in the sight plan, whereas in sight plan itself it is mentioned at place 'b' as the house of Ram Balak Shukla which is adjoining house of co-accused Shiv Shanker Singh. For the purpose of making details at place 'c also, at place 'c' that the house of Ram Balak Shukla has been given. It does not mean that his house was after house of Ashok Kumar, Bhagwan Singh and Munna Singh. The deceased has been murdered by brutal manner only on account of the love affairs. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. It is further contended that the daughter of the appli cant was having love affairs with the de ceased, in its retaliation the gun shot injury was caused on the buttock, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circum stance of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel or the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complain ant, considering the gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not enti tled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY this application is re jected. Application Rejected. .;