Deo Sharan Shukla @ D.S.Shukla vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Dev Sharan Shukla alias D.S. Shukla with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 142 of 2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sachendi District Kanpur Nagar.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Dinesh Singh Gautam on 2682006 at about 9.35 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 268 2006 at about 6.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 12 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and three other coaccused persons alleging therein that on 2682006 at about 6.30 p.m. when the first informant the deceased and other persons were going to lodge a protest against the Anti Encroachment Drive before the higher officials, and they were to ride on motor cycles, one Maruti Car came there from which the applicant and other coaccused came out. The coaccused Girija Singh hurled abuses and asked the coaccused Dheeraj Singh to cause firearm injuries, at his exhortation, the coaccused Dheeraj Singh caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased consequently, he fell down then second gun shot injury was caused by the coaccused Neeraj Singh. Thereafter the applicant and coaccused Girija Singh used butt blows on the person of the deceased. Thereafter they left the place of occurrence in a car. The deceased was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries in the way, then the first informant went to the police station alongwith deadbody and lodged the F.I.R. According to the postmortem examination report the deceased had received four injuries in which injury No. 1 was contusion on the left side temporal bone with its fracture. The second wound was also 1 inch above this injury. The injury No. 2 was contusion which at the temporal bone 4 cm above the left ear. Injury No. 3 was firearm wound of entry on the left arm. The in injury was having blackening. Injury No. 4 was firearm wound of entry with blackening on the right side of chest.

Heard Sri Rupak Chaube, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri J.S. Sengar and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. In the F.I.R. also the applicant was not having any weapon. The witnesses have stated before the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the applicant and coaccused Girija Singh caused injuries by butt of the guns of the coaccused Dheeraj Singh and Neeraj which shows that at the time of the alleged incident they were not having any weapon. The alleged occurrence has not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. The presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night. No source of light has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. During investigation some material improvements have been made in the prosecution story which show that it was not witnessed by the first informant and other witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. It is further contended that the fatal injury was firearm injury as mentioned in the postmortem examination report also and first of all firearm injuries were caused thereafter it is alleged that the remaining injuries were caused by using butt blows by the applicant of the coaccused Girija Singh. The applicant and caused the fatal blow. The applicant is a man of peace loving. In case, he is released on bail, he shall not tamper with the evidence.

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 not taken place in the dark hours of night but it has occurred in the evening time. Specific role of causing injury by the butt of the gun is assigned to the applicant also and the deceased has received injury Nos. 1 and 2 on temporal region, caused by hard and blunt object, in which temporal bone was fractured. The applicant has also caused injury on the vital part of the body and the injury was grievous in nature. The alleged occurrence has been witnessed by many persons and the applicant was having strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased. There is no reason of his false implication. The applicant is a man of criminal antecedent. In case, he is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

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

Accordingly this application is rejected.