Latafat vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Latafat with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2006 (S.T. No. 523 of 2006), under Sections 302 and 504, I.P.C., P.S. Shahpur, district Muzaffarnagar.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Tazim on 2.5.2006 on 8.45 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 2.5.2006 at about 7.00 a.m., the distance of the police station was about 9 kms. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The applicant alone is named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the applicant had not permitted to pass through the tractor of the deceased from the way which was adjoining to the field of the applicant. The applicant hurled the abuses and discharged the shot by his licensed gun, consequently the deceased Nazim received injuries and died instantaniously. The first informant and other persons working in the nearby field came at the place of the occurrence and the applicant was apprehended and in scuffling his gun was broken and it was left in the hands of first informant but the deceased successfully ran away from the place of the occurrence, the dead body of the deceased was taken to the house of the deceased. Thereafter the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received fire-arm wound of entry in the left side chest.

Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, senior advocate, assisted by S/Sri Lav Srivastava and Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and S/Sri Sunil Singh and R. P. Singh learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel, it was not pre-intended, the presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful, the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post-mortem examination report, the dead body of the deceased was not found at the place of the occurrence but it was taken to the house as alleged by the prosecution, it is a case in which the applicant has exercised his right of private defence of the property and in scuffling accidentally the shot was discharged and the gun was broken which was snatched by the first informant and others, the prosecution story was not corroborated by the site plan because at place ''X'' the deceased had sustained injury and at place ''B'' the deceased was asked not to pass through the tractor and at that place allegedly the applicant had hurled the abuses, it was at a distance of 30 paces but no steps from where the firing was done, had been shown in the site plan, even no place from where the witnesses saw the incident, has been shown in the site plan which belies the presence of the witnesses and according to the post-mortem examination report, a plastic cork was recovered from the dead body which shows that the injury was caused from a close range. The applicant is innocent, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the specific role of causing the injury is attributed to the applicant by fire arm, his gun has been snatched which was broken in the scuffling and the trial is at the advance stage because three witnesses have been examined by the trial court and the right of private defence is not available to the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.

Considering facts, circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant, considering the role of the applicant who has allegedly caused fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.