Raju alias Rajendra vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by one Raju alias Rajendra with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. South district Firozabad.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Santosh Sharma on 23.2.2006 at 00.40 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 22.2.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 1,1/2 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and co-accused Pawan, co-accused Hari Om, co-accused Dabbu and co-accused-Gopal are named in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons who were armed with gun and country made pistols, raided the house of the first informant and started hurling abuses. At the exhortation of the co-accused Gopal, they discharged shots by the gun and country made pistols consequently, Lalit Sharma received gun shot injuries and five passers-by also sustained gun shot injuries. They were taken to the hospital, but one of them namely Anoop Kumar Sharma succumbed to his injuries on 23.2.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. The medical examination report of the deceased Anoop Kumar shows that he had received multiple firearm wounds on both forearm and right arm and abdomen etc. The injured Lalit Kumar Sharma sustained three injuries caused by firearm. The injured Jameel sustained two firearm wound of injuries. The injured Abdul Majid sustained three fire-arm and of entry and one swelling and injured Anwar sustained firearm wound of entry.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Anurag Pathak and Shashidhar Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the murder of the deceased even according to the prosecution version the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged shots at the injured Lalit Kumar Sharma but accidentally the shot discharged by the applicant and others co-accused persons assaulted some passers-by also. The deceased was one of the passer-by his name has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. and the deceased sustained firearm sound of entry but it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased. According to the F.I.R. at the instigation of one Gopal all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. discharged shots at the injured Lalit Kumar during investigation Smt. Santosh, first informant, changed the F.I.R. version by assigning the role of exhortation to the co-accused Dabbu Sharma. According to her statement the applicant was armed with a D.B.B.I. gun. The place of occurrence is highly doubtful because in the spot inspection note at the alleged place of concurrence no blood was found. The alleged occurrence has taken place in some other manner. In fact, it has taken place in which the family members of the deceased attacked the family members of Mata Prasad in which the accused persons sustained injuries due to their own firearm but the cross F.I.R. has not been registered by the police. Thereafter an application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved but the same has been rejected by the learned Magistrate concerned against which a Criminal Revision No. 2104 of 2006 was filed before this Court. According to the statement of the first informant, the injured Lalit Kumar Sharma was taken to the hospital with the help of Satyendra Yadav, Raju Bhalla and Krishna Bhalla but as per her statement the injured Lalit Kumar Sharma one Vicky brought the injured persons to the hospital. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of night. There was no sufficient source of light because it is alleged that the alleged incident was witnessed in the street light and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The injured Jameel, Anwar and Abdul Majid have filed their affidavits before the learned C.J.M. Firozabad and S.P. Firozabad stating therein that they have not seen the applicant and other co-accused persons but without considering the same, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The witness Satyendra Yadav is highly unreliable witness because he is a pocket witness of the police and there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and the co-accused whose case was on the same footing with the case of the applicant as per F.I.R. has been released on bail by another Bench of this Court on 2.6.2006 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 808 of 2006, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. Specific role of firing is assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. They raided the house of the first informant-discharged shots indiscriminately consequently, six persons received injuries out of which Anoop Sharma succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The injured witnesses have supported the prosecution story. The F.I.R. has been properly lodged. During investigation it has been specifically alleged that the applicant discharged shots by D.B.B.L. gun. The co-accused Pawan has been released on bail by this Court. During investigation it was alleged that he was having rifle but the deceased has received no injury caused by rifle. The case of the co-accused Pawan is distinguishable with the case of the applicant because of the nature of the injuries of the deceased and injured persons shows that the injuries were caused by the gun. In case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence also.

Considering the fact, circumstances of the case and the submission 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 for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly the application is rejected.