Arvind vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Arvind with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2006 u/s 302, I.P.C., P. S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.

The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sanjeev Gupta at P.S. Karhal on 9.5.2006 at 12.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9.5.2006 at about 7.00 a.m., the distance of the police station was about 10 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that deceased Om Prakash Gupta was Dakpal of Bhora Branch, he has left his house on 9.5.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. to distribute the posts when he did not return to his house upto 9.00 a.m. the applicant and Ram Shanker proceeded towards the village Aspura by a motorcycle when they reached near Asrauli and saw the applicant and three other co-accused persons were assaulting the deceased by iron rods, the accused persons were having iron rods and country made pistols etc. The accused persons were shouting and uttering that the deceased be killed today when they were challenged by the first informant and others they escaped from the alleged place of occurrence by a vehicle. After sustaining the injuries the deceased was lying on the ground but he disclosed the name of the accused persons consequently he became unconscious and died. It is alleged that the accused persons had made a murderous assault on the deceased prior five or six years back of the alleged incident and they had looted the D.B.L. gun and the money, it''s case is pending before the Court concerned. In that incident the deceased was the star witness. Prior to the alleged incident the accused persons were extending the threats to the deceased, it''s complaint was made by the deceased to S. P. Mainpuri and Superintendent of Post Office, Mainpuri.

According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 11 injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 were lacerated wounds, injury Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 were abraded contusion and injury No. 9 was abrasion. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and there was a fracture on frontal bone, right temporal, right parietal.

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary and Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Sushil Dubey and Sri J. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence has taken place at a lonely place. The presence of the first informant and others witness Ram Shanker at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful even they did not disclose the specific time of the incident. Both the witnesses are chance witness. There is no other independent witness to support the prosecution story. Even according to the post-mortem examination report it appears that the deceased has sustained injuries in a road accident thereafter the information was given to the first informant and others then they came and saw the dead body. The prosecution story is highly unreliable. It is alleged that the prosecution story is highly unreliable. It is alleged that the accused persons were also having other weapons including the country made pistols but the same were not used. During investigation the manner of the incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been changed. According to the changed version the first informant and witness Ram Shanker stated that their black coloured vehicle looking as Marshal dashed the deceased thereafter the deceased fell down on the road thereafter the accused persons came down from the vehicle and assaulted the deceased by iron rods and iron pipe, upto to the some extent the first informant and witness Ram Shanker are also accepting that the deceased has sustained injuries in an accident. The witness Ram Shanker who is resident of District Auraiya whose presence at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful. The applicant is innocent he has been falsely implicated on account of pendency of a Civil Suit No. 481 of 1995 pending in the civil court. Prior to the alleged incident the applicant was falsely implicated in some other cases also and he was falsely implicated in an earlier case of dacoity also. The applicant is innocent, in case he is released on bail he shall not tamper with the evidence.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the deceased was a star witness in Case No. 167 of 2000 under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. The specific role of causing the injury is assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. The prosecution story is corroborated by the post-mortem examination report and the F.I.R. cannot be said to be encyclopaedia having a complete description of the prosecution. The applicant is having criminal antecedent. He is involved in some other criminal cases also on statements of the first informant and witness Ram Shanker. The deceased has sustained 11 injuries caused by hard and blunt object. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence because it is a case in which the applicant has committed the murder of the deceased after releasing on bail because the deceased was a witness against the applicant and other co-accused persons in an earlier case of dacoity, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the allegations that the deceased was the star witness in an earlier case of dacoity in which the applicant was also one of the accused after releasing on bail, the deceased has been murdered and the applicant is having criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.