Nakli vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Nakli with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302/34, I.P.C., P.S. Nanauta, district Saharanpur.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Prem Pal on 30.4.2006 at 12.50 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 30.4.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. The distance of the police station was about 6 kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and 6 other accused persons alleging therein that a litigation between the first informant and accused was pending in the Court of Consolidation Officer. Its pairavi was done by the deceased Raj Kumar. The case was decided in favour of the first informant, even on 29.4.2006, one day prior to the alleged offence, co-accused Veer Singh, Karesan, applicant Nakli, co-accused Bhushan and others dropped the bricks at the alleged disputed place for the purpose of taking the possession of that area. Its complaint was lodged at the police station Nanauta. The police came at the place of occurrence and bricks were removed from that disputed place. Due to this enmity on 30.4.2006 at about 8.30 a.m. the deceased Raj Kumar was sitting at the gher of Babu, where witnesses Ramesh, Anuj and Raj Kumar son of Raghubir were also sitting there. The applicant and other co-accused persons having the country made pistols and guns entered into the gher of Babu and discharged the shots at the deceased, consequently, the deceased, Anuj, Ramesh and Raj Kumar son of Raghubir received gun shot injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Saharanpur, but the deceased Raj Kumar succumbed to his injuries in the way and injured Ramesh, Anuj and Raj Kumar son of Raghubir were admitted in the hospital, whose condition was serious. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged. According to the post mortem examination report of the deceased Raj Kumar son of Jaipal, he received 4 ante mortem injuries. All the injuries were firearm wound of entries. According to the medical examination reports the injured Anuj received one gunshot wound of entry on the right side chest, injured Raju alias Raj Kumar son of Raghubir has received 6 gunshot wound of entries and injured Ramesh has received one gunshot wound of entry.

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

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. is delayed. The role of firing is assigned to 7 persons including the applicant, but the deceased has received only 4 gunshot wound of entries, which may be the result of single shot also. Three persons have also received gunshot injuries, but it has not been specified that whose shot hit the deceased and the injured. It is alleged that the injuries were caused by country made pistol and guns, but specific weapon was not shown in the hands of the applicant and other co-accused persons. Prem Pal the first informant of this case has committed suicide only because the applicant and other co-accused persons were belonging to the one family have been falsely implicated. During investigation the statement of the witnesses Anuj and Raju alias Raj Kumar son of Raghubir were recorded. They stated that the applicant Nakli, Veer Singh, Bhushasn, Jaideep, Malkhan and Pushpendra were armed with country made pistols. According to the prosecution version one 315 bore country made pistol has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, but neither the deceased nor any injured received any injury caused by the weapon of 315 bore. The alleged recovery was not supported by any independent witness. The applicant is man of peace loving. He alongwith his family members has been falsely implicated in the present case ; therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad day light. Its F.I.R. was lodged promptly without any delay after admitting the injured persons in the hospital. In this case one person has lost his life and 3 persons are injured and they have received firearm injuries caused by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence in which one person has lost his life and 3 persons are injured, the injuries were caused by the firearms 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, the bail application is rejected.