- (1.)The present application is the second application for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Ld. Trial Court for the grant of a regular bail. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident has taken place on 4/09/2019. The story of the prosecution is that the complainant along with others, reached the house of the applicant and asked him why he had abused the complainant on an earlier occasion. Upon being so questioned, the applicant is alleged to have pulled out a country made firearm and fired blindly. One of the shots is said to have struck the deceased Manoj Sahu, the driver of the car. Admittedly, it is not the case of the Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 19/05/2020 13:40:29 prosecution that the applicant had any kind of animosity, ill will or any other motive to kill Manoj Sahu.
(2.)Ld. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this court to the report of the post-mortem that was conducted on the deceased on 05/09/2019. The external characteristic of the injury is described by the doctor as a gunshot injury which bore scorching of the skin accompanied with blackening. There is no exit wound in the body. It also notes that no bullet was recovered from within the body of the deceased and that the x-ray report and the CT scan report showed that there was no bullet within the body of the deceased. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this court to the 161 statement of Dr R.S. Tripathi who is the Civil Surgeon at Chhatarpur Hospital. The doctor in his statement discloses that on 11/09/2019, a bullet was recovered from the post-mortem room by the cleaner. This bullet was however seized by the police only on 23/10/2019. Documents of the prosecution go to show that the hospital had kept the bullet with them and had only informed the police on 21/10/2019 about its recovery made earlier on 11/09/2019. On the basis of the same, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the case has been botched up by the police and that evidence has been created where there was none and that the deceased was shot by someone else and that is why the bullet was not recovered on the date on which the post- mortem was carried out else, the same would have implicated the person who had actually shot the deceased. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also submits that there is a cross case which has been registered by the applicant against the complainant of this case, in which it is alleged that the complainant along with the others had barged into the house of the applicant and fired gunshots.
(3.)Ld. Counsels for the State and the objector have in one voice objected to the bail being granted. They have stated that the aberrations in the investigation notwithstanding, the ocular evidence goes to indicate that it was the gunshot fired by the applicant which had killed the deceased. Even going by the contention of the Ld. Counsels for the State and the objector, none of the statements of the witnesses go to disclose that the applicant approached the deceased and fired the firearm from such proximity, on account which, it scorched the skin of the deceased at the site of the entry wound.