RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri I.M. Khan, Sri R.K. Tripathi, Sri R.J. Alvi and Sri Shahab Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Deepak Dubey, Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
(2.) THIS Bail application has been filed by the applicant Shakeel Ahmad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. C-6 of 2005, under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Khakreru, District Fatehpur. The facts, in brief, of this case are that FIR has been lodged by Chandra Kumar on 16.7.2005 at 12.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31.5.2005 at 3.00 p.m., the applicant and two other co-accused persons are named as accused in the FIR, the FIR has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed by learned Magistrate concerned in exercise of powers conferred under section 156(3) C.P.C.. It is alleged that on 31.8.2005, the first informant and his brother Govardhan were going to meet his sister, who was married in Fatehpur, at about 3.00 p.m. when they reached near village Inayatpur, Shankar dacoit along with Muskan Miyan, Anwar, Balaghat Ali, Asif Jama, Mohd. Ahmad, Amaldar ,Zahir, Sahab , Atiq Ahmad, applicant Shakeel, Naim, Madau, Amin, Satosh and 3 or 4 unknown persons armed with weapons, met them and at the exhortation of co-accused Shanker, the applicant an other co-accused Sahab discharged shots , consequently, the brother of the first informant, namely, Govardhan sustained gun shot injury, who died on spot. The firing was done at the fist informant also but he could not sustain, the injury because, he ran away to village Inayatpur. Prior to the alleged incident, Shanker and other co-accused had committed the murder of the uncle of the first informant, namely, Santa and his dead body was disappeared. According to post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained two fire wounds of entry, having the exit wound, the applicant applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur who rejected the same on 9.10.2007.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR is too much delayed, without having any plausible explanation. The presence of the first informant at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because the first informant was having equal enmity as the deceased was having with the accused persons. The accused persons were many in numbers, it was not possible for the first informant to escape from the place of occurrence as unhurt. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 1.6.2005 as of unknown deceased, its information was given to police station by Atiq Ahmad, the witness of the inquest report is Ram Gopal also, who is father of the first informant. Even then, it was not informed that the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also surprising that the dead body was has not been identified. The accused persons named in the FIR were having inter-se enmity. The FIR lodged by coaccused Atiq Ahmad on 16.7.2005 in respect of the same incident which is not reliable. It has been lodged in defence. The co-accused Sahab whose case is based on the same footing with the case of the applicant has been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 20.9.2007 in criminal misc. bail application No. 18179 of 2007.;