Keshav Gupta vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Keshav Gupta with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2006, u/s 302, I.P.C. and Section 30A, Arms Act, P.S. Chhibramau, district Kannauj.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Prem Chandra at Police Station Chhibramau on 15.3.2006 at 11.45 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 10.40 a.m. The distance of the Police Station was about 1 kl. mt. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that on 15.3.2006 the peoples were celebrating the Holi festival. The applicant and co-accused persons came there in which the applicant was armed with licensed revolver, co-accused Sunil was also having the applicant''s D.B.B.L. gun and remaining co-accused persons were armed with the country made pistols. At the exhortation of the co-accused Sunil, the applicant caused injury on the person of the deceased by his revolver at about 10.40 a.m. Thereafter, they fled away after extending the threat. The deceased had died in the way to the hospital. The alleged incident was witnessed by Lalji, Hariom, Lallu and others.

According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received six gun shot wound of entries and dimension of all injuries was same.

Heard Sri G. C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:

(i) That it is alleged that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated due to ill-will ;

(ii) That it is further contended that the alleged occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution as from the injuries sustained by the deceased, six bullets were recovered ;

(iii) That in the present case, the prosecution itself is not relying upon its own version because co-accused Manoj Gupta and Chandrasen Gupta, who are named in the F.I.R. have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation ;

(iv) That the F.I.R. is ante-timed, it was not in existence at the time of the preparation of the inquest report and Chik Form No. 13 ;

(v) That according to the F.I.R. only one shot was discharged by the applicant but the deceased had received six gun shot wound of entries and no injury was caused by the D.B.B.L. gun. It shows that the prosecution has not come with clean hands ;

(vi) That Lallu alias Rajendra Kumar and Lalji alleged witnesses have filed affidavits against the prosecution story. The first informant is the witness of the inquest report also which shows that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report and chik form No. 13. The time of death, time of lodging the F.I.R. and time of sending the dead body to the Police Line have not been mentioned and the revolver of the applicant was deposited at the shop of Dwivedi Arms Store, Farrukhabad, since 14.3.2006 ;

(vii) That the applicant is not having criminal antecedents, therefore he may be released on bail ;

In reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the role of causing injury by the revolver is assigned to the applicant and the deceased has received injuries caused by the revolver. The dimension of all injuries was same and six bullets were recovered from the injuries. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, it is a broad day light incident and in the circumstances there is no reason of false implication of the applicant. The contention in respect of the ante-timed F.I.R. shall be considered at the time of the trial. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the role assigned to the applicant causing injury by the revolver, the time of the incident which is broad day light, the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and the deceased had received six gun shot wound of entries and six bullets were recovered from those injuries and considering all the other facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.