Jitendra Singh (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Jitendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 561 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) 1986 P.S. Raksa district Jhansi.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Jagdish Singh Bundela on 15.7.2006 at about 00.10 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14.7.2006 at about 6.15 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 2 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and four other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the co-accused Ranjeet Singh molested the daughter of the first informant for which he was scolded. The family of Ranjeet Singh was having annoyance with the family of the first informant. The co-accused Ranjeet Singh had extended threat to the first informant and the deceased that they would be killed. On 14.7.2006 at about 6.15 p.m. the applicant, co-accused Ranjeet Singh, co-accused Mangal Singh alias Chaiva armed with the country made pistol, co-accused Saheb Singh alias Baghu armed with axe (Kulhari) and co-accused Pretam Singh armed with lathi, made assault on the deceased at the exhortation of the co-accused Pritam Singh. He was caught hold by the co-accused Saheb Singh alias Sabu and thrown on the ground, then the applicant and two other co-accused persons discharged three or four shots which hit on the person of the deceased. The deceased was taken to the medical college Jhansi where he was declared dead; leaving the dead body in the mortuary the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.

According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has received two gun shot wound of entry and six lacerated wounds.

Heard Sri Viresh Misra, Senior advocate, assisted by Sri Roopak Chaube and Sri Devesh Kumar learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Yogendra Singh Parihar, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. There is no explanation of six lacerated wounds. The alleged occurrence has taken place in a lonely place, role of firing is assigned to three persons including the applicant whereas the deceased has received only two gun shot wounds of entry in which injury No. 1 was having the blackening and tattooing, it was caused from a close range. The injury No. 2 was not having any blackening or tattooing, it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased. The F.I.R. is delayed and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R.

The manner of the occurrence has been changed during investigation on the basis of ante mortem injuries. It was alleged that the first shot of the applicant was missed, thereafter, the deceased was caught hold by the co-accused Saheb Singh alias Sabu and he was thrown on the ground, then the applicant and other co-accused discharged shots towards the deceased in which the shot discharged by the co-accused Ranjeet Singh was not fired. In the meantime, the applicant discharged the shots which hit the deceased and the co-accused Saheb Singh used kulhari blow on the face of the deceased. Co-accused Pritam also caused injury by using lathi blow. It is further contended that the presence of the first informant was highly doubtful because it has been stated deliberately by the first informant that the deceased was going ahead at a distance of 30 paces from the first informant and Ravindra. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, 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 there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. because the deceased who was in an injured condition, was taken to the medical college Jhansi, which was at a distance of about 26 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, his dead body was kept in the mortuary then the first informant came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. is properly explained. It has been specifically alleged that the applicant and two other co-accused persons discharged shots but during investigation it has been specifically alleged that one of the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased. There is no inconsistency in the post mortem examination report. The applicant is the main accused. In case, he is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant, and considering the role of the applicant and the gravity of the offence, 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.