Naushad vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—Applicant Naushad, son of Ishaq Ahmad has applied for bail as the first bail application in Case Crime No. 182 of 2005, u/s 302, I.P.C., P.S. Backonganj, district Kanpur Nagar.

According to prosecution case in brief as per F.I.R. is that on 13.11.2005 at about 4 p.m. in front of shop No. 95/91A Aminganj. Aftab and Naushad accused persons shot fires upon Haji Khursheed Ahmad Khan, consequently he sustained fire arm injuries, thereafter they fled away from the place of occurrence and the deceased was taken to Hallet Hospital in injured condition where he was declared dead. The F.I.R. was lodged by Khalid Ahmad Khan, son of deceased against both the accused Aftab and Naushad and one unknown person u/s 302, I.P.C. on 13.11.2005 at 6.05 p.m.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there was petty dispute regarding installation of shop in front of shop of deceased and in such circumstance, he could not be murdered by the present applicant and one unknown miscreant has also been named in the F.I.R. and it could not be investigated by the Investigating Officer, therefore, it is possible as to who committed murder of deceased and the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant falsely. It is further contended that there was no motive against the applicant and the deceased was a notorious person and he was having criminal history against him. It is further contended that none had seen the alleged incident and relative of first informant has been made as eye-witness regarding occurrence who would be a chance witness and after six days of the alleged occurrence he was allegedly arrested by the police and false recovery of 315 bore was shown from the possession of applicant wherein he has stated that it was used and committed murder and witnesses by the police are shown in Fard Baramadgi, therefore, recovery of country made pistol is not liable to be believed. According to ante-mortem injury, it appears that one person only caused injuries on the body of deceased. He is in judicial custody from 19.11.2006 in the above noted case.

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

The present applicant Naushad alongwith co-accused Aftab and one unknown miscreant are named in the F.I.R. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. which was lodged within 4 hours and 5 minutes. The delay has been explained that firstly the deceased in serious condition was taken to Hallet hospital and after declaring him dead, the F.I.R. was lodged.

The role of present applicant has been shown that he alongwith co-accused Aftab shot one each fire upon Haji Khursheed Ahmad Khan, the deceased, consequently he sustained two fire arm injuries on his body as ante-mortem fire arm wounds of entry. Later on he died due to succumb injuries, therefore, there is specific role also against the present applicant to cause fire arm injuries on the body of deceased. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the deceased had objected not to install the shop in front of his shop and on that basis he was murdered by them. Prosecution version is supported with the post mortem report of the deceased. He is in judicial custody from 19.11.2006. Country made pistol of 15 bore was recovered from his possession at the time of arrest and it was allegedly used in committing crime. This is the case of abroad day light murder.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, his bail application is hereby rejected.