Amit vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.

1 .This application has been filed by the applicant Amit with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2005 under Sections 147, 302, 307/34, I.P.C., P.S. Palinpur district Bulandshahr.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Harendra on 6.6.2005 at 1.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 6.6.2005 at about 12.30 p.m. The applicant and six other persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that on 9.10.2002 one Jagdish Singh was killed by one unknown person in which the first informant was falsely named but he was acquitted by the Court. Thereafter on 6.7.2004 one Sher Pal was killed in which the first informant was falsely named as accused. Due to this murder the applicant son of Sher Pal, co-accused Arun and Ajai sons of Jagdish, Mahipal and others were having enmity with the family of the first informant, on account of this enmity on 6.6.2006 at about 12.30 p.m. the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with country made pistol and guns, discharged shots indiscriminately consequently, shot discharged by the applicant Amit and Arun hit the deceased Jaiveer, Amit and Lalit sons of the first informant also sustained injuries in the said incident. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received three gun shot wounds of entry and three gun shot wounds of exit. The injured Amit had received 2 injuries caused by firearm but injured Lalit sustained one firearm wound of entry having its exit wound and one abraded swelling.

Heard Sri J. S. Kashyap and Sri A. N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the F.I.R. general role of firing has been assigned to the applicant and six other co-accused persons in which it was very difficult to ascertain that the shot discharged by the applicant and co-accused Arun hit the deceased. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated due to old enmity and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The family of the first informant is involved in criminal activities. The first informant is history sheeter, he was involved in 10 criminal cases. According to the statement of the injured Lalit, general role of firing is assigned to the applicant and others co-accused persons. It has not been specified as to whose shot fit the deceased. The F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of the preparation of the inquest report. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant is innocent ; he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place in broad day light. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. The specific role of firing is assigned to the applicant. He has been specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that the shot discharged by the applicant and co-accused Arun hit the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused persons were having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The trial of the applicant is in progress ; it is at the stage of conclusion. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts. circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the active role of the applicant causing injury to the deceased and considering the gravity of the offence, which is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.