Ramesh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Ramesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 876 of 2004 u/s 302, 504 and 406, I.P.C., P.S. Doghat, district, Baghpat.

The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been registered by Surendra on 28.12.2004 at 2.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 27.12.2004 at about 5.00 p.m. The distance of the police station was about eight kilometers from the alleged placed of occurrence. The applicant and two other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the applicant and two other co-accused were armed with country made pistols, they discharged the shots, in which the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased, consequently the deceased fell down in front of the animal hospital. The accused persons extended the threats to the first informant and other persons after committing the alleged incident they fled away towards Garhi. Due to this incident the panic was created and the market was closed. The deceased in injured condition taken to Pyare Lal Sharma hospital, Meerut from where he was referred to Medical College where he was admitted but died at about 8.00 p.m. According to medical examination report of the deceased, the deceased had received one lacerated wound and according to post mortem examination report the deceased had received one firearm wound of entry on right side chest having its exit wound. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence. According to the prosecution version the role of firing is assigned to three persons, it was very difficult to satisfy as to whose shot hit the deceased, there is no independent evidence to support the prosecution story. The witnesses of the locality namely Raghuveer and Ved Pal have not been interrogated. The F.I.R. is ante-timed and there is inconsistency in the first medical examination report and post mortem examination report. This shows that the alleged incident was not witnessed by the first informant and other witnesses.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the applicant is the main accused whose shot hit the deceased, it has been corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The slight delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been properly explained because first of all medical aid was provided to the deceased, unfortunately he died in the hospital, thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. The alleged occurrence has been witnessed by the first informant and other witnesses, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., considering the allegation that the shot discharged by the applicant hit the deceased, considering the gravity of the offence which had occurred in market area and without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.